contactable_inboxes_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about whether this is a safe read operation or not.

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 only three words, which is under-specified for a tool that likely returns a non-trivial result. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing critical information.

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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain what 'contactable inboxes' are or what the response contains. It is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'id', so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no additional value is added.

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 'Get Contactable Inboxes' essentially restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from siblings like 'get_inbox' or 'list_all_inboxes'. While the verb and resource are clear, the description adds no additional specificity.

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 such as 'contact_inbox_creation' or 'get_inbox'. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.

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