check_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'priority-sorted' and 'optional short wait,' but does not explain what 'wait' does (e.g., poll for new messages), whether messages are marked as read, or any side effects or access requirements. This is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and reads well, though 'optional short wait' is vague and takes away slightly from the overall clarity.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal to enable correct invocation: it does not explain return format, paging behavior, parameter semantics, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is completely inadequate for the complexity level.

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 must compensate for the absence of parameter docs. It only hints at wait_ms via 'optional short wait' and says nothing about room, limit, agent_id, or priority, leaving five parameters without meaningful explanation.

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 tool lists unread messages, specifying message types (DMs, broadcasts, @mentions). This is a specific and identifiable purpose, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish itself from them, so it falls short of 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chat_history, read_message, or search_messages. The description implies usage for viewing unread messages but offers no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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