list_inboxes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the scope ('for this tenant'), which is good, and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any potential limitations like pagination, ordering, or what constitutes an 'inbox,' so the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and resource immediately. Every word earns its place.

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, parameterless read-only list tool, the description is mostly complete. It states the resource and scope, and there is no output schema to worry about. However, it does not explicitly state what is returned (e.g., a list of inbox objects), though this is strongly implied by 'List all inboxes.' A complete description for a CRUD suite might benefit from one extra clause.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 action (List) and the resource (all inboxes) with a scope qualifier ('for this tenant'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_inbox and delete_inbox because the verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for viewing existing inboxes before creating one, or contrast with list_address_rules. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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