inbox_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces and expands on this by noting it works 'without fetching content' and explaining output semantics (volume, age, heartbeat). The last_poll explanation adds significant operational context beyond the annotations, clarifying what the tool reveals about daemon status and potential message loss.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence succinctly states the core purpose, the second provides targeted usage guidance, and the third gives critical daemon-health context. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the most essential detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no parameters, the description is fully self-contained. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, what to look for, and how to interpret a potential failure state. This is complete for the tool's simple read-only nature and integrates well with the sibling tool list.

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 0 parameters, so there is no parameter complexity to explain. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate since none exist, and it adds no unnecessary parameter-related text.

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 summarizes the capture daemon's buffered content without fetching it, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying 'Check this before inbox_fetch', establishing its role as a status/inspection tool distinct from fetching or sending.

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 provides excellent usage guidance: when to use ('before inbox_fetch'), what information it provides (volume per chat, age of oldest message), and how to interpret the daemon's health (last_poll heartbeat with a concrete failure condition). This is exactly the contextual information an agent needs to decide when to call this tool.

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