perseus_inbox

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true; the description adds context about the message source (workspace inbox) and return format (message array with read/unread status), going beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and key features. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 read tool with two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all essential behavioral details: read-only, message source, filter capability, and return shape. No gaps remain.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description only reinforces the unread parameter with 'Filter to unread only', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as reading agent-to-agent messages from the workspace inbox, with a specific use case of checking coordination messages. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source (inbox) and context (agent-to-agent).

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 suggests using the tool to check coordination messages and mentions filtering to unread. While it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tool names like 'perseus_read' provides implicit differentiation.

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