get_inbox_agent_bot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show', implying a read operation, but omits details like required permissions, whether the operation is safe (non-destructive), or what the response contains. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks structure or additional useful information. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it minimally acceptable.

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 and no annotations, the description should provide hints about return values or side effects. It does not, and the tool's purpose is vaguely defined, leaving the agent with insufficient context to determine if this is the right tool for the task.

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% (one parameter with description 'ID of the inbox'), so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Show Inbox Agent Bot' uses a clear verb (Show) and resource (Inbox Agent Bot), indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not explain what an inbox agent bot is or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_inbox' or 'update_agent_bot', limiting differentiation from siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There are no prerequisites, context hints, or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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