inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose this is a read operation on an inbox where cross-agent messages land. It does not explain whether reading affects unread state, how since filtering behaves, or any permission/availability constraints, but the read intent is clear.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource; no filler. The typo 'magents' is minor and does not undermine structure.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description covers only the basic read behavior and session default. It omits the meaning of agent and unread_only, return shape, and filtering semantics, so an agent cannot fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 only 25% and the description only clarifies session_id ('this session or a given session_id'). The agent and unread_only parameters are left unexplained, and since is only documented in the schema. Low coverage means the description should compensate but does not.

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: 'Read the magents inbox' and adds the key context that cross-agent messages land there. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate against sibling tools like read_transcript or get_session.

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: read this session's inbox when you need messages left by other agents, optionally for a given session_id. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so the routing is only inferred.

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