check_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication and filtering/pagination, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it affects message read status, or what the response structure looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the supported options in a compact list. There is no filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain the return format or any side effects. While the basic purpose and filtering options are clear, the agent is left without enough context to fully understand what happens when the tool is invoked, or what it should do with the results.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the parameter purposes (pagination, status, taskType) without adding extra nuance or examples beyond what is already in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' with a clear resource 'the authenticated key inbox', distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_outbox and get_message. It also lists filtering capabilities, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for checking the inbox with optional pagination and filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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