get_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It's a read operation, so safety is inherently clear from 'Get', but the description doesn't disclose return format (despite an output schema existing), pagination behavior, ordering of results, or how the limit applies per account. Some behavioral context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

One clean sentence, zero waste, immediately states the core action and scope. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With 100% schema parameter coverage, the tool is adequately documented. The description covers the key purpose and scope variance. However, no guidance on ordering, pagination, or typical usage patterns, which would slightly improve completeness for a list-retrieval 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 all three parameters (limit, account, unread_only) are documented at the schema level. The description adds the account-vs-all-accounts distinction, but that's already in the schema for the account parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond schema; 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?

Description states the verb ('Get'), resource ('inbox emails'), and a key scope dimension ('from a specific account or all accounts'). It distinguishes partially from siblings like get_all_unread_emails (which targets all unread) and search_all_emails (search). Purpose is clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely related get_all_unread_emails.

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 implies usage context (retrieve inbox emails from one or all accounts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_all_unread_emails or search_all_emails. The account parameter clarifies the single-vs-all distinction, but no direct exclusions or alternative tool names are referenced.

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