iam_inbox

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only discloses one behavioral trait (no mark-as-read). Other traits like authentication, rate limits, or state changes are omitted. For a read-only tool, more could be said about side effects or scope.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, but lacks structured presentation of key info. Could be improved by front-loading the key behavioral trait and adding parameter context.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It covers purpose and a behavioral note but misses parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and broader behavioral transparency. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

Description does not mention any parameters. Schema has 0% description coverage with two parameters (limit, unread_only) that remain unexplained. The description should clarify their meaning and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists newest inbox messages for the project without marking them read. It distinguishes from siblings like iam_read (which likely marks as read) and iam_list_mailboxes (lists mailboxes, not 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'without marking them read' implies a contrast with iam_read, but no alternatives or context are provided. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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