get_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that it returns the most recent N tasks regardless of state, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits side effects (e.g., does it mark as read?) and any authentication or rate-limit info. Still, it provides more than just the 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 sentences, each earning its place: first states core functionality, second gives usage guidelines and a key behavioral detail (state). No fluff, front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. The tool has simple parameters (limit, include_acked) with defaults. The description covers basic usage and distinguishes from siblings. However, the lack of parameter explanation is a gap, making it not fully complete. Still, it's adequate for a straightforward list tool.

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 should compensate. It does not mention the 'limit' or 'include_acked' parameters, nor their meanings or defaults. The hint about 'most recent N tasks' implicitly suggests limit but is insufficient. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema.

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 lists incoming A2A DMs (messages TO this agent), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_conversation and send_dm by focusing on the inbox concept. The usage guidance ('use this when user asks...') reinforces purpose.

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 explicit use cases ('do I have any messages?') and notes it returns tasks regardless of state. However, it does not exclude scenarios like checking sent messages or specific filters, which could be handled by siblings. Still, the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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