Pull inbox packet

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only behavior, and the description adds key behavioral details: it runs validation checks and, when importing, does not acknowledge or delete the retained delivery. This goes beyond the raw annotation values by explaining side effects and limitations.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and then providing a critical clarification. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the presence of a complete input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and key behavioral caveats. It could mention the no-write default when import is false, but the schema already covers that, making the description sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, 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 primary action: verifying an async delivery by SHA-256 and packet/security checks, with an optional import via the 'import' flag. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ack_inbox_delivery by explicitly noting that import does not acknowledge or delete the delivery.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to verify an inbox delivery and optionally import it. It implicitly excludes acknowledgment/deletion as separate actions, giving a when-not hint. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a full decision tree.

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