Get Inbox

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true) and the volatility expectation (openWorldHint=true), lowering the bar. The description adds modest behavioral value by specifying a recency ordering and inbox scope, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or whether ordering is guaranteed beyond the word 'recent.'

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 sentence with zero filler: the verb is front-loaded, the resource and scope are named immediately, and no structured information from the schema or annotations is redundantly repeated.

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 simple list tool with one fully documented optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, almost nothing an agent needs to call it is missing. The only slight gap is pinning down the meaning of 'recent' and the ordering guarantee, which is minor at this complexity level.

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%: the single parameter (limit) has its type, numeric range, default, and meaning fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas applies.

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 specific verb ('List') and a well-defined resource ('recent conversations from the LinkedIn messaging inbox'). It distinguishes cleanly from the sibling tools get_conversation (a single thread's messages) and search_conversations (query-driven search), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 establishes clear context: this is the default, recency-ordered browsing entry point for inbox conversations. However, it never names the alternatives or states when not to use it — especially relevant given the closely related search_conversations and get_conversation siblings — so the routing decision is left to inference.

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