list_inbox

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

The description discloses the selection criteria (inbox, not completed, not trashed) and implies a read operation via 'list'. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, which it meets adequately.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 list tool with an output schema and clear inbox definition, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks parameter documentation, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 does not explain the 'limit' or 'offset' parameters. This is a significant gap, as the description adds no meaning 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 clearly states the tool lists tasks in the Inbox, defined as tasks with schedule='inbox', not completed, not trashed. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_today or list_upcoming.

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 implies usage for unscheduled or unassigned tasks by defining the inbox criteria. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the definition provides sufficient context.

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