paperclip_get_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return structure (array with fields like id, status, priority) and error handling codes (401, 404). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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-structured with clear sections (main sentence, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Every sentence is relevant and concise, with no fluff. It effectively front-loads the key purpose.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return structure (array of assignments with specific fields) and covers error scenarios. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, this provides sufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (response_format), including its enum values and default. The description echoes this information but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return the current agent's compact list of active issue assignments.' This specifies the verb (return), resource (active issue assignments), and scope (current agent). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_get_issue and paperclip_list_issues by mentioning what it does not do.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use when: finding which issue to work on after waking from an @-mention' and 'Don't use when: you need full issue details — use paperclip_get_issue or paperclip_list_issues instead.' This provides clear context and alternatives.

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