Check Agent Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds real value by revealing the per-agent file backing store, but it never explains that the default invocation is a read while mark_read mutates persisted state, nor how reads are scoped per agent name.

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 with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the storage location follows immediately as supporting detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-boolean, zero-required-parameter tool this is close to adequate, and the file path hints at the payload. But with no output schema, the description says nothing about the returned message shape or fields, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail (e.g., that mark_read only affects the messages returned) beyond what is already structured.

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 concrete verb and resource ('check messages') and scopes it with 'addressed to you,' which separates it from write-side siblings like send_message and broadcast. It also names the backing store (comms/to-{your-agent-name}.json), so the agent knows exactly what is being read. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus send_message, broadcast, or the agora tools, and no guidance on how mark_read interacts with a typical check cycle. The only usage signal is the implicit 'messages addressed to you' scope, leaving the agent to infer everything else.

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