ig_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 covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail — that both feeds are filtered to unanswered/awaiting items — but says nothing about scan scope, rate limits, or result shape.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits what the parameters control (how many posts to scan, how far back to look) and does not characterize the returned inbox structure. An agent cannot predict the result shape or cost from this.

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 only 33% (only 'account' is documented), so the description should compensate. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving 'posts' and 'max_age_days' — which govern scan depth and lookback window — unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a concrete resource ('Bandeja unificada') and specifies exactly what it aggregates: unanswered comments plus DMs awaiting response. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like ig_comments_unanswered and ig_conversations by combining both sources, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'Punto de partida para "responde a todo"' implies when to reach for this tool (a triage starting point), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is named for the single-source cases.

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