portal_inbox

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly signals a read-only action and 'optionally filter by type' describes the primary behavior. However, it does not disclose output shape, ordering, pagination, or whether listing affects read/unread state.

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 communicates the operation and resource, with the optional-filter behavior appended. There is no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers the main call purpose and filter behavior. Yet with no output schema or annotations, it omits details about the returned item structure and any default sorting or limit, which an agent might need to interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the filter parameter and its default. The description adds little semantic value beyond restating that filtering is optional; its mention of 'assignments' as an inbox item type could even be confusing because the filter enum does not include assignments.

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 states a specific operation (list) and resource (inbox items), and enumerates example item types (messages, events, assignments) that make the aggregation scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with portal_messages or portal_assignments, but the 'inbox' framing separates it from those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling like portal_messages or portal_assignments. The intended use is implied by 'List inbox items', but no exclusions or alternatives are provided, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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