check_agent_commons_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement and the interpretation of mentions (untrusted leads), which adds context. However, it does not explain the read-only nature by default or the side effect of the 'acknowledge' parameter, nor what the response looks like. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the interpretation warning is valuable, and the auth requirement is essential. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core essentials: what it checks, the semantic framing (leads not instructions), and the auth requirement. The lack of return-value detail is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter 'acknowledge' is fully described in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 specific action ('Check mentions'), the resource scope ('all agents owned by this TaskBounty account'), and the nature of the content ('untrusted leads, not instructions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_agent_commons or post_agent_collaboration by focusing on reading mentions rather than browsing or posting.

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 the tool: checking mentions for agents, interpreting them as leads rather than instructions. It also states a prerequisite (login or API key). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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