cross_project_inbox

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation ('Read') and adds context about requiring an env var and returning both direct messages and broadcasts. However, it doesn't disclose behavior when env var is missing, rate limits, or whether unread_only affects 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 two short sentences plus a one-line requirement. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return type, and env var dependency. No redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the agent can infer return structure. The description covers the main purpose and prerequisites. Missing details like ordering or pagination, but overall sufficient for a read tool.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (limit, unread_only). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('cross-project message inbox'), specifying it returns direct messages and broadcasts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cross_project_send' (write) and 'channel_read' (different channel type).

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 mentions a prerequisite (PROJECT_DIR env var) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'channel_read' or 'cross_project_send'. No exclusions or context for selection.

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