check_inbox_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool polls events captured via a background SSE connection, returns buffered events, and optionally clears them. It also provides examples of event types (new mail, status changes). It could be more explicit about blocking behavior or what 'clears' entails beyond the parameter, but overall the key behaviors are transparent.

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, with the first front-loading the purpose and the second explaining the return and clear behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality, the parameter, and the return concept. It could specify the event structure or clarify non-blocking behavior, but the current level of detail is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 schema fully documents the single 'clear' parameter, and the description simply restates that events are 'optionally cleared.' No additional semantic detail is provided beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a poller for real-time inbox events, using a specific verb ('Poll') and a specific resource ('real-time inbox events'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_inbox and get_message by focusing on events rather than message content.

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 (polling events) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_inbox or get_message. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer the context from the purpose statement.

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