check_inbox

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

The description indicates a read-only operation (checks for jobs, returns list) with no destructive hints. With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the behavior, though it could mention that no side effects occur.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and output. No wasted words.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple query, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and return value. It mentions the specific statuses returned (PENDING and ACCEPTED), which is adequate.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter description is needed. The description effectively communicates what the tool returns.

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 that the tool checks for new service requests (jobs) assigned to the user and returns a list of PENDING and ACCEPTED jobs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deposit_aave or execute_swap which are DeFi operations.

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 implies usage for checking inbox but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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