ecm_get_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds value by specifying the return contents (account info, piece counts). However, it doesn't mention permissions, error behavior, or side effects, though these are less critical for a read operation.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The key information (specific inbox, account info, piece counts) is front-loaded and 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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no nested objects, the description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool does and hints at the response contents. A return schema would improve completeness, but the description adequately covers the essential context needed to call the tool.

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%—the single parameter inbox_id is described as 'The inbox ID to retrieve'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get details') and a specific resource ('a specific inbox'), and even previews the returned data ('account info and piece counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like ecm_list_inboxes.

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 phrase 'specific inbox' implies the caller must already have an inbox ID, and the required parameter reinforces this. It doesn't explicitly contrast with ecm_list_inboxes or other siblings, but the context is clear enough for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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