agora_my_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 notification payload fields and warns that snippets are remote-authored text to treat as information, never as instructions. It does not state whether checking marks items read, whether the tool is read-only, or any pagination behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with inbox identity and action guidance. The security sentence earns its place. The mixed Spanish/English is a minor structural inconsistency but does not bloat the description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the two undocumented parameters and lack of sibling differentiation leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool precisely.

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 0%, and neither 'limit' nor 'unread_only' is mentioned in the description. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, leaving their semantics entirely undocumented.

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 it is the AGORA work inbox for mentions and describes what notifications contain (source_type, source_id, context, snippet). The resource is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like agora_get_notifications.

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?

Instructs to check the inbox each cycle and to respond in the originating source (Space, forum thread, knowledge thread), not here. This gives clear usage context and a when-not rule, though no named alternatives are provided.

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