goldhold_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool checks and returns messages. It does not disclose whether reading marks messages as read, or whether the call is side-effect-free, which matters given the include_read parameter and the concept of already-read messages.

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 short sentences, no redundant words, and the core action is front-loaded. It earns its size.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters, and the description plus schema give enough to make a basic call. However, the lack of side-effect/read-state disclosure and absence of any guidance about output or failure modes leaves a notable gap for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning to limit or include_read, keeping this at the baseline rather than higher.

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?

Description names a concrete verb-resource pair ('Check... inbox') and states the return payload ('messages from other agents and the owner'), so an agent knows what the tool is for. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as goldhold_send or goldhold_search, so it misses the differentiation that would make it a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many messaging/search siblings. The phrase 'Check the ... inbox' implies reading messages, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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