getInbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get inbox by ID' only indicates a read operation without specifying permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what is returned (e.g., inbox metadata, messages, or status). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Get inbox by ID', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but as per scoring rules, it earns high marks for brevity and structure.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools like 'listInboxes' and 'getMessage', the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'inbox' entails, how to use the ID, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'inbox_id' undocumented in both schema and description. The description 'Get inbox by ID' implies the parameter is an identifier but adds no meaning beyond the schema's title 'Inbox Id', failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Get inbox by ID' restates the tool name 'getInbox' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('inbox'), but lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, messages, or details) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'listInboxes' or 'getMessage'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify if this is for retrieving a specific inbox's details versus listing all inboxes with 'listInboxes' or fetching messages within it with 'getMessage', leaving usage context implied but undefined.

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