team_time_agent_inbox

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low; the description still adds real value by flagging that message text is untrusted task data (a prompt-injection warning) and that delivery is limited to undelivered messages. It says nothing about ordering, limits, or what an empty inbox looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence carries distinct information (scope, follow-up routing, trust warning). Zero filler.

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 output schema, the description should hint at the returned message shape or at least the fields needed to act on a message, and it doesn't. The security warning and reply/ack routing are strong, but the unexplained optional runId and unstated return shape leave real gaps for a tool an agent will act on directly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for two UUID parameters, yet it never mentions installationId or the optional runId. An agent must guess that runId scopes the inbox to a single run, which is exactly the kind of meaning the description should supply.

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 and resource with scope: read undelivered task messages for an installation. It also explicitly separates itself from two siblings by naming reply_agent_message and declaring acknowledgment a distinct action, so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for the follow-up actions ('reply... using reply_agent_message; acknowledgment is separate from answering'), which steers the agent to the right sibling tools after reading. It does not, however, address when to use this inbox versus team_time_get_agent_message or team_time_pending_commands, which are the closest overlapping reads.

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