triage_inbox

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, while the description adds that results are unread items annotated with deltas since last read. It does not cover pagination, how "last read" is determined, or whether the default limit truncates results, so it is useful but not rich.

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 compact and front-loads the unread/change content. The fragment style is terse and could be more grammatical, but no sentence wastes 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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, it conveys the core return concept. However, it omits parameter semantics and any scope or limit detail, which are the main gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description says nothing about the two parameters. It does not clarify the limit's meaning or the workspace filter, leaving the vague "Items" schema text to carry the burden.

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 identifies the resource and scope: unread items plus what changed since last read, including new comments, fields, and status. It is clear but is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led action and does not distinguish itself from the sibling changes_since.

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?

It implies the triage use case by mentioning unread items, but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative such as changes_since. An agent must infer when this tool is preferred over other change/history tools.

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