get_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens on failure. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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 very concise with just three words, making it easy to parse. However, it's arguably too brief, potentially under-specifying the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key action but could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity.

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 tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the Inbox concept, how it differs from other todo-related tools, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for optimal agent use without additional inference.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.

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 'Get todos from Inbox' clearly states the action (get) and resource (todos from Inbox), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_todos' or 'get_today'. It specifies the source (Inbox) but lacks detail on what 'Inbox' means in this context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_todos' or 'get_today'. The description implies it's for retrieving todos from a specific location (Inbox), but it doesn't clarify if this is a filtered view, default location, or how it relates to other sibling tools.

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