list_inbox_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities and pagination via 'limit' and 'offset' parameters, but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned items. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List inbox items with optional filtering by any field') and immediately follows with a practical example that reinforces usage. Every part of the description earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filter syntax but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, the description doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable tool invocation.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'limit' for pagination, 'filters_query' for filtering). The description adds value by providing a concrete example of filter syntax ('search:cve-2024-12345 and severity:high'), which clarifies how to use the 'filters_query' parameter beyond the schema's generic description. However, it doesn't add significant semantic depth beyond what the schema already covers.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('inbox items'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_inbox_item_details' by focusing on listing with filtering rather than retrieving specific details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_cloud_resources' or 'list_containers' beyond the resource name.

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 through the mention of 'optional filtering by any field' and provides an example filter syntax, suggesting when to use this tool for filtered listing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_inbox_item_details' for specific items or other list tools for different resources, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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