canvas_inbox

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the shape of each returned row (unread count, subject, participants, last message time), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, or what happens beyond the limit cap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the parenthetical return-field summary follows. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for routing guidance.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields largely closes the gap. Only minor omissions remain (sort order, whether it is unread-only or all conversations), which are unlikely to cause a mis-call.

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 'limit' parameter already documents its default of 20 and its 1–100 bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (收件箱会话列表 = inbox conversation list) and even enumerates what each row carries (unread count, subject, participants, latest message time). This makes it clearly distinct from the singular canvas_conversation sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would infer this is the entry point for browsing the Canvas inbox, after which canvas_conversation would be used for a single thread. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisite (e.g. login) noted.

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