hub_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return value for empty cases ({empty:true}), the kinds of data distilled, and the polling intent. This goes beyond a simple 'get inbox' and provides useful behavioral context, though it doesn't disclose potential side effects or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'What needs a DECISION right now' and no filler. Every clause adds value, including the contrast with hub_brief and the empty-case behavior. 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?

The description covers the return format for empty state, enumerates what is included, and provides usage guidance. Since there is no output schema, mentioning {empty:true} is helpful. It could list more about the response structure, but for an inbox tool with one parameter, this is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'hours' is described as the window for blocked-report scan with default 72. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: listing items needing immediate decision (blocked reports, overdue tasks, unassigned tasks, expired claim locks). It also distinguishes itself from hub_brief by explicitly noting it is not a time-window distillate, making it easy for an agent to pick the right tool.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'poll this instead of re-reading hub_status/hub_brief every cycle' and contrasts with hub_brief ('not a time window'). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and which alternatives to prefer.

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