Social Check Inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains nuanced behaviors: the inbox is split across three endpoints with independent unread state, unread_count may not correspond to the messages list, and unread_elsewhere means a zero count does not imply an empty inbox. This goes beyond a simple read operation and materially protects against misinterpretation.

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 well organized: a one-line summary, a bulleted breakdown of the three subcomponents, and a closing caveat. Every sentence adds meaningful context, no repetition or fluff.

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 covers the full scope of the response semantics, including edge cases around unread counts and list contents. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be repeated here. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly interpret the results without additional assumptions.

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 100%, with limit and offset already clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the structured fields already carry the meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the active account's message inbox.' It then clearly enumerates what is reported (three endpoints, unread_count, messages, scratch_team_messages, invitation), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like social_get_comments.

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 establishes clear context: it checks the active account's inbox and aggregates all three inbox endpoints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is well defined enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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