Inboxes: List Agents in Inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement (User API key in the `api-access-token` header), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or return shape.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by endpoint and auth. The trailing Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note is generic API-wide boilerplate that adds little for this specific read tool, but the overall structure is tight.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema. Purpose, endpoint, and auth are all present; nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both account_id and inbox_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'List the agents assigned to an inbox'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like gapify_list_agents (all agents) or gapify_list_team_agents (agents in a team), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to related siblings such as gapify_add_inbox_agents, gapify_update_inbox_agents, or gapify_remove_inbox_agent. The agent must infer the selection context entirely from the name.

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