check_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never discloses that retrieval mutates state by default (mark_as_read defaults to true), nor whether the call is non-blocking, nor what an empty inbox returns — all of which an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope arrive immediately.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum flag the read-state side effect and the blocking distinction against wait_for_inbox. As written it is adequate for identifying the tool but leaves the agent to discover the mutation behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so session_id, unread_only, and mark_as_read are already fully documented, including their defaults. The description adds only the framing that the session is one hosting spawned specialists, which mildly informs session_id but goes no further than the schema.

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 (check) and resource (inbox), plus the kind of content expected (messages, updates, deliverables) and its origin (spawned specialist sessions). That distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like send_agent_message or get_session_transcript, though it does not explicitly contrast with wait_for_inbox.

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: an agent can infer this is a non-blocking poll of its own inbox. Nothing tells it when to prefer this over wait_for_inbox (blocking) or list_sessions, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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