List inbox messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful default-inbox behavior, but does not state whether listing messages has side effects, whether it is read-only, or what happens when no messages exist. This is a partial gap.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main action appears first, and the default behavior is included parenthetically without bloating the text.

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-style tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics: what it lists and the default address behavior. However, it does not describe what the returned message list contains (IDs, subjects, etc.), which is relevant given the lack of an output schema. The tool is functional but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, and the single optional 'address' parameter is already described in the schema as 'Inbox address; defaults to the most recent inbox'. The description mostly repeats this same information, adding the 'disposable inbox' framing but no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'List the messages currently in a disposable inbox'. It also clarifies the default behavior of using the most recently created inbox. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_message, create_inbox, and wait_for_code.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives such as read_message for a specific message or create_inbox for creating an inbox, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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