List inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses scope and item types. It does not mention whether this is read-only, how results are ordered, how pagination works, or what happens with mixed platforms/accounts. The phrase 'accessible accounts' adds some context but not enough behavioral detail.

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 short sentence with no fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices useful content, making it minimally adequate rather than well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, so the description must provide nearly all the context needed for correct invocation. It only names item types and account scope; an agent cannot determine expected return shape, filtering behavior, or pagination semantics.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. limit, offset, status, platform, accountId, and sourceType remain unexplained except by their names and enums. The description must compensate for the missing schema descriptions but does not.

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 resource: 'Incoming comments, mentions, and DMs across accessible accounts.' The title and name reinforce the action of listing an inbox. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_comments by emphasizing cross-account inbox-style aggregation, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_comments or reply_to_inbox_item. The description only states scope ('across accessible accounts') but does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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