dsh_inbox_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so reasonably well by naming the API method, the returned status fields, and the non-blank default selection behavior. It does not cover error behavior, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple polling operation the disclosed behavior is sufficient for an agent to form accurate expectations.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then supplies the key parameter behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description names the underlying endpoint, the fields returned, and the default selection rule, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It does not enumerate possible return shapes or error cases, but those are less critical for a simple status-polling 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 already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage and even says 'omit = latest non-blank.' The description repeats this nuance but adds no new format, constraints, or example beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and names the exact resource ('DSH session status') and underlying method ('session.list'), plus the fields it returns (running, title, updatedAt). This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the sibling dsh_inbox_deliver, which clearly handles delivery rather than status.

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 gives clear operational guidance: omit session_id to target the most recently updated non-blank session, which tells an agent exactly when the optional parameter should be left out. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of dsh_inbox_deliver,' but the contrasting verb/resource makes the usage context clear enough without an explicit exclusion.

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