has_pending_messages

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

The description includes the behavioral trait 'non-blocking', which is not in annotations (none provided). This adds value beyond the schema. For a zero-parameter tool, this suffices; no side effects are mentioned but none are expected.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and return format. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (as indicated), the description fully informs the agent about the tool's purpose and return type. No gaps.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since there are none.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'quick check if user has sent any messages in-game', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_pending_messages' which would retrieve the actual messages.

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?

The description implies usage for a lightweight existence check via the phrase 'quick check' and the return type (True/False). It does not explicitly name alternatives but context with sibling tools like 'get_pending_messages' suggests when to use which.

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