sql_editor_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile (non-mutating read) is covered. The description usefully adds the incremental-read behavior ('newer than after') and the single-editor scoping, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or whether unread vs all replies are returned.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded; no filler. The stray double-backtick around 'after' is a minor formatting blemish rather than wasted 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it identifies what comes back and the filter. It still omits return shape/ordering and pagination expectations, which an agent needs to poll 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load. It explains 'after' (only replies newer than this value) and implies editor_id selects the chat panel, but adds no detail on type/format (e.g., timestamp vs message id) or the default-0 behavior implied by the schema.

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 names the resource precisely ('replies sent to one SQL Editor's chat panel') and the scope filter ('newer than after'), which separates it from the write-side sibling sql_editor_reply. It is clear to an agent what content this tool surfaces, though the retrieval verb ('list'/'fetch') is left implicit.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as sql_editor_reply (posting a reply) or sql_editor_ask. The agent must infer the polling/read-back use case entirely from the name and the 'after' filter.

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