Inbox Refresh

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the on-demand fetch/ingestion trigger, but does not explain side effects, whether the call blocks until retrieval completes, or why it is non-idempotent (e.g., repeated calls triggering duplicate retrieval). A mild tension exists between the read-sounding verb 'fetch' and the non-read-only annotation, but the trigger semantics justify it rather than contradict it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its trigger contrast are both stated in minimal space.

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 two-parameter, non-read-only trigger operation with annotations but no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does but omits return behavior (e.g., whether fetched messages or a count is returned) and any completion/blocking semantics that would matter for a non-idempotent refresh.

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 description coverage is 100%: inboxId and organizationId are both documented with names, lookups (inbox_list, organization_list), and required constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch new messages from an inbox') plus the immediately distinguishing trigger ('now instead of waiting for the next scheduled retrieval'). It is distinguishable from inbox_list/inbox_get by the on-demand trigger framing, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 'instead of waiting for the next scheduled retrieval' gives a clear context for using it rather than relying on the default schedule. However, it stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., inbox_list to read without triggering) or stating when not to call it, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.

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