Read private messages / inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what is listed, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or how pagination works. The title implies 'Read', but the description lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence, which is efficient in length. However, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity, leaving gaps in parameter usage and behavioral transparency. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource but lacks completeness.

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 output schema, the description should elaborate on the return structure or behavior. It mentions the types of items listed but does not describe the format, pagination, or how to handle large results. For a tool with no annotations and rich sibling tools, more context is needed.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (limit, filter). The description does not mention these parameters or their roles. Without this context, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions, making it hard to understand what filter values like 'unread' or 'comments' mean in this context.

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 'Lists' and the resource 'inbox items', specifying the types included (private messages, comment replies, mentions). The title 'Read private messages / inbox' reinforces the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with user info, posts, or actions like sending messages.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where this is appropriate, or when to avoid it. Sibling tools like reddit_search or reddit_mark_read are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit help.

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