sym_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the newest-first ordering and explicitly warns that clear:true empties the inbox after reading, which is an important side effect. It does not describe the full return shape, but for a simple inbox-reader this is acceptable.

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 with no filler, front-loading the content and ordering before the clear parameter behavior. The first sentence is a grammatical fragment, but it is still compact and information-dense.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity—one optional boolean parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description covers the essential facts: what the inbox contains, how results are ordered, and how clearing works. A clearer verb would strengthen it, but nothing critical is missing for correct selection and 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 input schema only defines a boolean 'clear' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the meaningful behavior: clear:true empties the inbox after reading. Since there is only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 identifies the resource as templates sent from the studio page via the '→ Claude' button and specifies their contents (director prompt, reference image, sample) and ordering (newest first). This differentiates it from sibling template tools like sym_templates and sym_template. It lacks an explicit operative verb like 'list' or 'get', but the intended behavior is still clear.

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 the use case: this is the inbox for user-sent templates from the studio page, and clear:true is the cleanup option. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sym_templates, sym_template, or sym_history, leaving some routing to inference from sibling names.

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