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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Read' and 'public,' implying it is non-destructive and requires no special auth. It also hints at the return value by mentioning the 'returned CR-WQ task_id.' This is sufficient transparency for a simple read operation, though it does not detail response format or edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and hints at the return value. However, it omits explanation of the limit parameter and does not describe the structure of the inbox entries. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but leaves some gaps that a more thorough description could close.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains agent_id by referring to 'one stable CrystalRAM scientist ID,' but the limit parameter is entirely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameter understanding, leaving agents to guess the purpose and constraints of limit.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('public assignment inbox') and scopes it to 'one stable CrystalRAM scientist ID.' It is distinct from siblings like team_dispatch_board and team_roster, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb and resource are specific enough to convey the tool's function.

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 gives a clear follow-up action (check in through Mission Control with the returned CR-WQ task_id) but does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage context (reading assignments) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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