check_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the default behavior (addressed to you or unaddressed) and the side effect of auto-claiming (to prevent duplicate work). It does not mention any other side effects (e.g., whether claiming is reversible), but the key behavior is disclosed.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then clarify defaults and the optional claim behavior. Every clause adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, but the description adequately conveys that it returns clinks and highlights the important filtering defaults. It could mention the return format or that status defaults to pending, but this is covered in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without confusion.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of auto-claiming ('prevent duplicate work') and the default for for_me. This extra context helps the agent decide when to set claim=true, adding value over the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('your inbox') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_clinks by focusing on clinks addressed to you or unaddressed. It also introduces the auto-claim capability, which makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 when to use it: to view pending clinks in your personal inbox, and when to use auto-claim (when you intend to process them to prevent duplicate work). It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_clinks, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool over general listing tools.

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