listInboxes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List all inboxes' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'all inboxes' entails (e.g., user-specific vs. global). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential purpose.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a list operation with pagination parameters, this minimal description leaves too much undefined for reliable tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'limit' and 'offset' do (e.g., for pagination) or their default values. This leaves two undocumented parameters, making it hard for an agent to use them correctly.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all inboxes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getInbox' (singular) and 'createInbox', though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other list tools like 'listMessages' or 'listThreads'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing inboxes, or when to choose this over other tools like 'getInbox' for specific inbox details. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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