List inbox

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful scope by noting the items span 'accessible accounts' and cover multiple content types, but it does not disclose pagination defaults, ordering, or return behavior.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted language and is front-loaded with the core resource. However, it is a fragment rather than a structured sentence and leaves the agent with minimal invocation guidance.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is materially incomplete. It should explain filtering, pagination, default behavior, and what the returned inbox items contain.

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?

There are six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It gives no guidance on limit, offset, status, platform, accountId, or sourceType, so the low schema coverage is not compensated for.

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 identifies the resource as incoming comments, mentions, and DMs across accessible accounts, which clearly differentiates it from post-specific tools like list_comments. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name and title supply 'list', so the purpose is still clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_inbox versus alternatives such as list_comments or reply_to_inbox_item. It also omits any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for retrieving inbox items.

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