list_inbox_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the one-liner. It does not state whether results are paginated, what a thread record contains, or any ordering/limit behavior. The word 'active' is ambiguous since the schema permits filtering by non-active statuses.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the action verb leading. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 list tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits what is returned, how pagination behaves, and default ordering. An agent lacks enough to call it correctly beyond guessing at the filters.

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 100%, so the baseline would normally be 3, but the description actively enumerates only three channels ('Telegram, Instagram, and web portal') while the channel enum also supports 'email'. This omission risks making an agent believe email threads are unsupported, so it subtracts rather than adds value.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('studio customer support conversations' / inbox threads), making the operation instantly recognizable. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_conversation_messages or send_inbox_reply, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It never mentions get_conversation_messages (for reading a thread's contents) or send_inbox_reply (for responding), nor any prerequisite or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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