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

The description discloses the key side effect that notes seen here are marked read, which goes beyond the annotations' generic readOnlyHint=false. It also explains that tasks should be handled via kb_task_update, but it does not elaborate on repeat-call behavior or how include_done interacts with read 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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the usage cue and side effect. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately lists the returned fields: id, sender, time, title and text. It also covers the important mutation behavior and points to kb_task_update for tasks, making the definition complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as how include_done changes the listing, so the baseline 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 verb and resource: check unread notes and open tasks addressed to the agent, including broadcasts, with listed return fields. It clearly defines scope, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as kb_read or kb_notices.

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?

It gives a clear usage cue: 'Check it when you start work.' It also routes task handling to kb_task_update, which is a useful alternative for one part of the workflow, though it does not state when not to use this tool.

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