chatwoot_get_inbox_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Returns ... metrics' is consistent with that read-only profile. The description adds the inbox_id acquisition context but no deeper behavioral disclosure (e.g., what metrics are computed, date-window semantics, aggregation). With annotations carrying the safety burden and an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate — no contradiction, but little added value.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact. However, two of the three arg explanations ('Analysis period', 'Output format') are tautological restatements of the schema titles, wasting words that could have explained semantics. It is not padded, but the information density is low in the Args section.

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?

Annotations, enums, and the output schema cover the safety profile, valid period/output values, and return structure, so an agent can call it with the required inbox_id. The main gap is that the description never differentiates this from the cluster of sibling performance tools (agent/team/label/inbox) nor explains what 'period' does to the analysis. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for confident tool selection among the family.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It helps meaningfully for inbox_id ('use chatwoot_list_inboxes to get IDs') but period ('Analysis period') and output_format ('Output format') are mere restatements of the parameter names. The enums (today/7d/30d; markdown/json) supply structure but not meaning — an agent still doesn't know what '7d' means semantically or how output_format changes the result. Compensation for the 0% coverage is inadequate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Returns performance metrics for a specific inbox.' This clearly identifies the entity level (inbox) and naturally differentiates it from sibling performance tools (chatwoot_get_agent_performance, chatwoot_get_team_performance, chatwoot_get_label_performance) by the inbox scope. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inbox-level performance metrics. The description offers one useful pointer — 'use chatwoot_list_inboxes to get IDs' — but this addresses parameter acquisition, not tool selection. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling performance metrics tools or any exclusions.

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