get_mailbox_md

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context such as caching the version and its role in sync verification for other tools, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does and providing usage instructions. No superfluous text; highly efficient.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and zero parameters, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: caching, sync verification necessity. Combined with annotations, it provides complete context for tool invocation.

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?

No parameters are defined; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional meaning is needed.

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 retrieves the renter's MAILBOX.md standing instructions, listing the specific return fields (full instruction text, version, content hash, last update timestamp). It is distinct from siblings like 'get_mailbox' by specifying the 'md' suffix and instructions context.

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 explicitly instructs to call this on startup and cache the version, and mandates passing it to send_outbound_mail and update_action for sync verification. This provides clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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