check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'check messages' but doesn't disclose key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies state (e.g., via auto_ack), what happens on failure, or rate limits. The example shows parameters but doesn't explain the tool's effect beyond basic functionality.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a usage example. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear but minimal, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or the tool's role in the message system. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value with an example using 'agent' and 'namespace', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Check messages for an agent' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'check' means (e.g., retrieve, inspect, verify). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list' or 'chk' which might have similar functions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 a usage example with two parameters, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list' or 'chk'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The example implies it's for checking messages, but without context for choosing among siblings.

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