qq_poll_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the immediate-return vs. wait behavior, the timeout cap (max 30000 ms), a batch size limit (max 50), and an authorization constraint (whitelisted owner only). This is substantial, though it omits the return format and behavior on timeout.

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?

Two sentences pack in the core action, access restriction, and behavioral details without fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every clause delivers valuable information. This is a model of conciseness for a simple 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it fetches, who can use it, the timing model, and the limits. Minor gaps (return format, timeout behavior, non-owner handling) are acceptable given the tool's simplicity, but a bit more detail would make it fully complete.

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 schema has a single parameter (timeoutMs) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains that timeoutMs controls the maximum wait time and caps at 30000, directly giving meaning to the parameter. It also adds a batch-size constraint that is not in the schema, enriching the tool's semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch private messages received by the bot') and adds scope ('whitelisted owner only'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like qq_wait_inbox (which likely waits indefinitely) and qq_send (which sends messages). The polling behavior is also explicitly described, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage in a polling context ('Returns immediately if new messages; else waits up to timeoutMs'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as qq_wait_inbox or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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