hub_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses what results are returned (blocked reports, overdue tasks, unassigned tasks, expired claim locks), the 'empty:true' response case, and the polling nature. It doesn't cover potential side effects or rate limits, but it is a read-style tool and the description is sufficiently transparent for an agent to understand behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('What needs a DECISION right now'), and each sentence provides distinct, useful information: the content categories and the polling guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 list/query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, the specific items returned, the empty response, and usage context. It stops short of detailing the full response shape, but the combination of the schema parameter descriptions and the main description gives an agent sufficient understanding to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents 'full' and 'hours' with clear descriptions. Therefore, the description neither adds nor detracts from what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'What needs a DECISION right now', and enumerates specific categories (blocked reports, overdue tasks, etc.). It also differentiates from hub_brief by noting 'not a time window like hub_brief', making it clear what this tool does that others don't.

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?

It gives direct usage guidance: 'poll this instead of re-reading hub_status/hub_brief every cycle' and clarifies the distinction from hub_brief. This explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool over alternatives.

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