get_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result includes the most recent N tasks regardless of state (submitted/working/completed), which is a non-obvious behavior beyond a plain 'list'. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the list semantics and separate ack sibling make that less critical.

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?

Three short sentences each add value: the core action, the when-to-use trigger, and the non-obvious state behavior. The description is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler.

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 gives the core purpose, usage triggers, and result semantics, and an output schema covers the return shape. However, it misses important context for correct invocation, especially the meaning of include_acked, and it never mentions that 'acked' is a separate concept from the listed task states.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters, but it only vaguely suggests the limit via 'most recent N tasks'. The include_acked parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess what 'acked' means in this domain.

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 names a specific operation ('List'), a specific resource ('incoming A2A DMs'), and clarifies 'messages TO this agent', which distinguishes it from outgoing DM tools like send_dm and reply. The parenthetical removes ambiguity about directionality.

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?

It gives concrete triggering phrases ('do I have any messages?' or 'check my inbox'), which tells an agent when to select this tool. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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