Read messages addressed to you

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior beyond what structured fields offer. It fails to state whether reading messages has side effects (e.g., marking as read), requires authentication, or is destructive. The description is minimal and does not cover safety or operation traits like idempotency. This is a significant gap for a tool that reads user-specific data.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it borders on under-specification. It conveys the core action without any waste, but the structure lacks front-loading of critical details like parameter effects or when to use. It earns a 3 because it is efficient yet misses opportunities to pack key info into the brief format.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not nearly complete. It does not address return format, pagination (implied by 'limit'), or the effect of 'mark_read'. For a read operation with parameters influencing state, this leaves significant unknowns for the agent.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, mark_read, unread_only) or how they affect behavior. Without clarifying these, the agent cannot effectively configure usage. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw property names.

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 reads messages left by another agent ('Read messages the other agent left for you'). The verb 'read' and the resource 'messages' are specific. While it distinguishes from 'notes_send' and lists of other tools, it could be more explicit about the source being other agents (not system) and that it retrieves messages addressed to you.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'coop_status' or 'ag_task_status'. The description does not mention scenarios for reading messages, prerequisites (e.g., having received messages), or when not to use it (e.g., for sending messages). The sibling tools list provides context, but the description itself lacks usage direction.

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