Paperclip inbox

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, the description discloses the conditional return behavior: Markdown inline when under token threshold, otherwise only a new immutable snapshot path. This is useful trait information that is not present in the annotations or schema.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then explain the output condition and the polling cue. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important return cases (inline Markdown vs snapshot path) and when to call again. The configured threshold and snapshot concept are not detailed, but the description is sufficient for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers this completely, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The description adds context about token-threshold behavior, though parameter-specific semantics are naturally not applicable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('current agent compact inbox'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling paperclip_* tools by naming the inbox resource and the conditional return modes.

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 phrase 'Call again whenever fresh assignment state matters' gives clear situational guidance for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the tool is a singular fetch of the inbox and siblings are not obvious substitutes, so the guidance is adequate.

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