check_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a non-obvious side effect: the call also refreshes the heartbeat and keeps the registration alive. That dual-purpose behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent could not infer from the empty schema. It omits auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode details, but the key behavioral trait is surfaced.

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, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the usage instruction. The parenthetical explaining why the heartbeat matters is compact and 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. Purpose, trigger timing, and the heartbeat side effect together give an agent everything needed to call this correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Prueft die eigene Inbox auf neue, noch offene Nachrichten") and the scope is narrow enough to be actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_replies, so the agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

"Sollte am Anfang jedes Turns aufgerufen werden" gives an explicit, concrete trigger for when to call it, which is strong usage guidance. It names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of the top score.

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