Get Inbox

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially incomplete results. The description adds that it lists 'recent' conversations, implying time-based ordering, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or any limitations.

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 concise sentence with clear front-loading of the main purpose. No extraneous information is included.

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 presence of an output schema and simple input (one optional parameter), the description is largely complete. It could be improved by noting the ordering (e.g., by time) or that it returns limited recent conversations, but for a low-complexity tool, it suffices.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limit', providing baseline value. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the score is at the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves a list of recent conversations from the LinkedIn messaging inbox, specifying the action, resource, and context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_conversation (single conversation) and search_conversations (filtered search).

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 listing inbox conversations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_conversation or search_conversations. It does not state when not to use it or give context for minimal usage.

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