check_messages

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 the data source (reads from a JSON file) and implies a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state that setting mark_read=true can modify state, nor does it describe the return format. This is a moderate gap.

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 purpose and backed by a data source. No wasted words and the structure is clean.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and data source, which is adequate for a simple message-checking tool. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns, but with no output schema the return value is fairly obvious from context. Overall, it's complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Both parameters (mark_read, unprocessed_only) are fully described in the schema with defaults and coverage at 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: checking messages addressed to the agent. It specifies the resource (messages addressed to you) and the data source (comms/to-{your-agent-name}.json), which distinguishes it from siblings like send_message or get_agora_topics.

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 clear context: use this to read personal messages addressed to you. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unmistakable when compared to siblings like send_message or broadcast.

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