Read 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 reveals a non-obvious behavior (acknowledged messages hidden by default), which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond the word 'List', so coverage is partial.

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 deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral detail with no filler. The structure is clear and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose and the behavior of the boolean flag, though it omits details like return format because there is no output schema. Given the low complexity, this is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that acknowledged messages are hidden by default, which directly illuminates the purpose of the includeAcknowledged parameter and informs when to set it to true. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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 action ('List messages') and the resource ('addressed to an agent'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes from siblings like bridge_send or bridge_ack by focusing on reading rather than sending or acknowledging, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives context about default behavior ('Acknowledged messages are hidden by default') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as bridge_wait or bridge_thread. It does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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