get_inbox

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

The description lacks behavioral detail beyond 'list recent conversations'. With no annotations, it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, what 'recent' means, or any limits on the result set besides the implicit limit parameter.

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 a single, short sentence, which makes it concise but arguably too brief for a tool that could benefit from a bit more context. It is front-loaded but lacks important 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 lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not specify result format, pagination, or the meaning of 'recent', leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide any additional meaning about the parameter's usage or effect.

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 resource 'conversations from your LinkedIn messaging inbox'. It is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_conversation' which could imply a single conversation retrieval.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_conversation' or 'send_message'. No exclusions or context about typical use cases are given.

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