check_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns a list of jobs, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency or disclose behavior when no jobs exist.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters and simple behavior, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It is complete for a straightforward check tool.

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 no parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no missing details.

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 it checks for new service requests (jobs) assigned by other agents and returns a list of PENDING and ACCEPTED jobs. The verb 'checks for' and resource 'service requests (jobs)' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'post_job' and 'update_job_status' by focusing on receiving.

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 when to use (to check for incoming jobs), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Since it is the only tool for receiving jobs, usage is implied, but no exclusions are stated.

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