agents_registry_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions filtering but fails to clarify side effects like the markAsRead parameter mutating read status, or default pagination behavior (e.g., order, whether messages are returned sorted). The absence of output schema further limits transparency.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It is concise but could be slightly more structured; however, for a tool with 5 trivial parameters, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of messages with fields). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. Given the moderate complexity (5 params, pagination, mutation option), this is a significant 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?

The input schema describes all 5 parameters with full coverage, so the bar for added value is moderate. The description only references two filter options (read status and thread) without adding detail beyond the schema. This provides basic context but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 fetches messages from the agent's inbox, specifying the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'inbox'. It also mentions filtering capabilities, and sibling tool names (e.g., agents_registry_send, agents_registry_reply) make the distinct purpose obvious.

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 for retrieving inbox messages with optional filters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the sibling tool names and context make the intended use clear. A slightly higher score would require explicit exclusion guidance.

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