list_inbox

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), yet the description still adds real value: oldest-first ordering, the absence of pagination with silent truncation of older items, and the agent-auth requirement. Those are the exact behavioral traits an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the safety profile, then the truncation caveat. Zero filler and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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 four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers ordering, filtering, default page size, the truncation hazard, and auth. No output schema exists, and the return concept (pending review items) is stated clearly enough not to need one.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the default limit of 20 and clarifying that there is no offset parameter at all. It also restates the conditional auth requirement for api_key in context.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List memories pending human review") plus the sort order, which is enough to separate it from search_memory or review_memory at a glance. It never explicitly names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear operating context: read-only, optional namespace/limit, and a warning that there is no offset so a full page silently drops older pending items. That warning effectively tells the agent when this tool is unsafe to trust naively, though it never says which alternative to use instead.

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