List Inbox items

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the feed is 'bounded' and 'mixed', providing slight behavioral context, but does not specify the bound or return format. It adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no filler, and every word serves to specify the resource and scope.

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?

The description clearly identifies what the tool lists, but it omits any explanation of the 'search' parameter and does not describe the response shape or pagination. Given the presence of sibling list tools and the lack of an output schema, more detail would help, but the core purpose is sufficiently clear for a basic list operation.

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 input schema has one optional 'search' parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention search at all, leaving its purpose and behavior completely unspecified. The parameter's name hints at filtering, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource: the bounded mixed Inbox feed containing Tasks, Notes, and Checklists. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_tasks and list_notes by emphasizing the mixed Inbox scope.

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 the tool is for the Inbox feed and the word 'mixed' signals it returns multiple item types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over list_tasks or list_notes, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references. The usage context is inferred from the name and resource description.

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