check_inbox

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns subjects, bodies, and auto-extracted links, but it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the inbox is empty, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and the return value. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the basic function and output, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., inbox must exist via create_inbox), what happens on empty results, or any error handling. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, additional detail would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The tool's description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., address purpose, wait_seconds default and range). The description focuses on the return value, not parameter semantics.

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 action 'Check a temporary inbox' and specifies what it returns: subjects, bodies, and confirmation links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_inbox or delete_inbox, which are for management, and wait_for_email, which likely just waits without returning details.

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 using this tool to retrieve new messages from a temporary inbox, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like wait_for_email or verify_email. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, limiting guidance for selecting the tool.

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