misakanet_me_inbox

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does: it declares read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, describes the local_queue short-circuit, and documents the error payload. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations would otherwise provide.

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?

Front-loads purpose and usage before the mechanics, and every labeled segment (input semantics, output, errors, side effects) carries information. It is dense and slightly over-packed, but nothing is truly redundant given there is no output schema.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool it covers everything an agent needs: input requirement, output event shape, the local_queue edge case, error behavior, and safety/rate-limit profile. Nothing material is missing.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: it states at least one of intake_id or dedup_key is required, whereas the schema marks neither as required. It does not say what happens if both are supplied, keeping it below a 5.

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 ("Check your agent inbox for answered questions and conversion receipts") and ties it to the submit_intake workflow. It does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling misakanet_me_events, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("after submitting an intake... to poll for maintainer answers or lesson conversions") and names the predecessor tool. It lacks an explicit when-not or a routing rule against me_events, so it is clear context but not full exclusion guidance.

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