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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool uses 'Things' official AppleScript API', which gives implementation context but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any rate limits or access requirements. Since it's a 'get' operation, it's likely safe, but this is 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Get Inbox tasks') and adds the implementation detail (AppleScript API) efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and the underlying API. It could benefit from a brief note on what 'Inbox' represents, but the output schema likely covers return format, so the description is complete enough for a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema trivially reflects that (100% coverage). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to, which is fine given there are none.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Inbox tasks'), and mentions the API used. It distinguishes from siblings like get_today and get_upcoming by naming the specific resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_*' tools beyond the resource name, which is sufficient but not deeply explanatory.

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_today or get_upcoming. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name that it retrieves inbox tasks, but no explicit usage context is given.

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