agent_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to clarify critical aspects: whether reading consumes/removes messages from the inbox (pop vs peek), authentication requirements, or rate limits. 'Read' implies read-only but lacks necessary operational context.

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 extremely efficient at 6 words with no filler content and is front-loaded with the action. However, given the complete absence of annotations, it may be inappropriately brief rather than appropriately concise, warranting a 4 instead of 5.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undefined message lifecycle behavior (consumed vs retained), the single-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'pending' means or what the return format looks like.

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 the 'agent' parameter fully documented as 'Agent name to check inbox for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides complete documentation.

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 provides a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('pending messages'), clearly indicating this is an inbox retrieval tool. While it effectively distinguishes itself from revenue/crypto siblings implicitly, it lacks explicit differentiation from 'agent_message' (which likely sends messages), preventing a score of 5.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agent_message', or prerequisites such as agent existence verification. The description states what the tool does but not when an agent should select it over sibling tools.

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