list_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes basic listing behavior but does not disclose potential side effects, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only tool, this is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The most important information (listing inbox conversations) is front-loaded, followed by optional filtering details.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, it could mention potential limitations like pagination or result limits, but overall it is sufficient for a listing tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (platform, unread_only, org_id). The description adds 'Optionally filter by platform or unread status', which mostly repeats schema descriptions. It does not clarify org_id usage beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'social media inbox conversations (DMs and comments)', specifying it shows incoming messages from multiple platforms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_customers' or 'list_social_posts'.

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 mentions optional filtering by platform or unread status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_conversation' or 'reply_to_message'. It implies listing all messages but lacks decision guidance.

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