read_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical side effect that messages are cleared (a consuming read), which is valuable. But it omits other important traits: whether clearing is permanent, whether the call blocks, error handling, or whether multiple messages are returned in one call.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the action and the key qualification before any elaboration. Appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the essential operation and its clearing side effect. It could be more complete by describing the return shape (e.g., list of messages) or any blocking behavior, but it covers the core contract adequately.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add or compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return and clear') and resource ('messages received from peers'), and the qualifier 'not pushed to you' implicitly distinguishes it from a push-based sibling like wait_for_message. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 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?

The phrase 'not pushed to you' implies this tool is for retrieving queued messages rather than waiting for a push, which gives some usage context. However, it never states when to call this versus wait_for_message or list_peers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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