chatwoot_list_inboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context by stating that it returns all inboxes in the account, but it does not describe output format behavior or any other operational detail beyond the annotation baseline.

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 main sentence is short and front-loaded, clearly stating the core behavior. The Args line is mostly redundant, but the overall description is small and free of unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only list operation with one optional enumerated parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the core function and scope, though it could be improved by noting that only the listed inboxes are returned and clarifying the output_format option in a non-tautological way.

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 should compensate, but it only repeats 'Output format' without explaining the meaning of the available values or when to choose one. The enum and default in the schema do most of the work, and the description adds no semantic value beyond a tautology.

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 clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('all inboxes (channels) in the account'), with concrete examples of channel types. It is easy for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. An agent is left to infer that this is the right tool whenever a full list of inboxes is needed.

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