Get Inbox

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'recent' as a filter, but no details on sorting, pagination, or side effects). It does not contradict annotations and provides some context beyond them, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the essential action and scope. It has no redundancy or filler, maximizing clarity in minimum words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, an output schema is present, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately defines its function for the agent to select and invoke correctly. Minor omissions like pagination behavior or recentness definition could slightly enhance completeness, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, a 4 is reasonable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit' with clear constraints (1-50, default 20). The description does not add further parameter-specific detail, but given full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('recent conversations from the LinkedIn messaging inbox'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_conversation (fetches a single conversation) and search_conversations (searches/filters), so it fully specifies its unique role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating it lists inbox conversations, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_conversation for a specific conversation or search_conversations for filtering). While the context is evident from the name and description, no explicit 'when not to use' is provided, so it earns a 3.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.