List durable inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by clarifying the default behavior (pending only) and indicating that includeAll should be used sparingly, implying a possible performance or semantic difference.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second gives a conditional usage caveat. No redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple list operation with a single optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It clarifies the default state filtering and the exceptional case without over-explaining.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical usage guidance for includeAll ('only when reviewing history'), going beyond the schema's straightforward boolean explanation and giving an agent a decision rule for when to set it.

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 tool lists pending async packet deliveries for the store, which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_briefs and list_packets by focusing on inbox deliveries.

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 clear guidance on when to use the includeAll parameter ('only when reviewing pulled, acknowledged, or rejected history'), but it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools like get_inbox_delivery. Still, the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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