Neurons Inbox

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, implying a side effect, and the presence of peek/include_read strongly suggests fetching can mutate read state — yet the description says nothing about this. The only behavioral detail given is that wait_seconds blocks until something arrives; the caps (limit 50, wait 120s) and any side effects are undisclosed.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the resource enumeration is front-loaded ahead of the blocking-wait note. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say roughly what an inbox item looks like and which IDs it exposes for follow-up calls (reply, review_submit, handoff_get). It also leaves the read-state side effect unexplained. The wait_seconds behavior is at least covered, keeping this from being inadequate.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description bears full responsibility, and it explains only wait_seconds. peek, limit, and include_read get no meaning at all — an agent cannot tell that peek likely means 'read without marking as read' or what limit defaults to.

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 names a concrete resource and enumerates its contents (unread questions, replies, reviews, handoffs), so the agent knows this is an aggregate inbox feed rather than a single-item fetch. However, there is no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like review_get, handoff_get, or recall, which an agent could reasonably choose instead.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for you' suggests a personal feed and wait_seconds hints at long-polling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no guidance to prefer review_get/handoff_get for a single known item. The agent must infer the polling vs. blocking-wait choice from a single clause.

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