get_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's asynchronous behavior: it queues a cloud-browser workflow, returns an immediate status snapshot, and requires long-polling via get_workflow_result. It also explains pendingReason values ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours') and how get_workflow_result behaves in each case, covering what the agent needs to know beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically builds to prerequisites, async workflow, and pending handling. Every sentence carries essential information without fluff or repetition. It is longer than average but appropriately detailed for a complex async tool, and the structured progression aids comprehension.

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 that this is an async tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the immediate return payload fields, the follow-up call to get_workflow_result, the meaning of pending reasons, and even how to communicate waiting periods to the user. This covers all necessary context for correct invocation and result retrieval.

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% (type, since, threadId all have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it mainly reiterates that type filters standard vs Sales Navigator, which is already in the schema enum descriptions. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 messages from the monitored inbox across all conversations (standard and Sales Navigator), newest first. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_conversation and retrieve_connections, and it includes a prerequisite (sync_inbox) that further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (after enabling inbox monitoring) and how to handle asynchronous results: use get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId/operationName, and do not retry the original tool while a workflow is running to avoid duplicate work. It also describes pending reasons and appropriate user reporting, providing clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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