Danh sách hộp agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond them: only *active* inboxes are returned. It says nothing about auth scoping, pagination, or ordering, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the action. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant for a single reader but is a deliberate audience choice rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It still omits whether results are account-scoped, whether the list is paginated, and what an 'active' inbox means, which leaves modest gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to add, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 (list / liệt kê) and resource (active agent inboxes), which clearly separates it from mail_inbox_get, mail_inbox_create, and mail_inbox_messages. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of the top band.

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 Vietnamese clause 'Khi cần biết agent đang trực những hộp nào' gives an implied when-to-use condition (you want to know which inboxes the agent is serving), but there are no exclusions and no reference to competing tools such as mail_inbox_get for a single inbox.

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