get_inbox

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context by clarifying the unread scope and item categories. However, it does not disclose behavior such as ordering, pagination semantics, whether 'unread' state can change, or how the account parameter affects results. Given the annotation coverage, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 and front-loads the core concept ('Unread inbox') before listing content types. It has no filler or redundant wording, though it sacrifices behavioral detail that other dimensions require.

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?

There is an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, so return values and safety are partially covered. However, with zero parameter documentation in the description and no usage guidance relative to siblings, the tool definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in all contexts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the limit and account parameters. It does not mention or clarify either parameter at all. The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 identifies the resource (inbox) and its scope (unread), and enumerates the content types included: private messages, comment replies, and username mentions. It relies on the tool name for the verb 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct enough from siblings like get_messages even without explicitly naming alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_messages, search_mentions, or mark_read. The description implies 'unread' content, but there is no explicit statement about use cases, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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