skuuy_read_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: messages come with plain-text bodies plus auto-extracted 4-8 digit OTP codes and action links, and the tool is meant to be polled rather than called once.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding: what it reads, what the output contains, and when to call it. The most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the body, OTP codes, and action links. The only gap is paging/result-limit behavior, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 only 33% – inbox_id is documented but limit and offset are not, and the description never mentions paging at all. The description reinforces where inbox_id comes from, but does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (reads messages in a temp inbox) and anchors it to the sibling that creates that resource, skuuy_create_temp_inbox. No other sibling involves inbox reading, so the tool is unambiguous.

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?

"Poll this after triggering a verification email" gives an explicit triggering condition and implies repeated invocation. It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use case, but the workflow context is clear enough to act on.

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