mailbox_board

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, output format, permissions). It only says 'human-readable status board' without any detail on what the board returns or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about implications of invoking it.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core concept. It is concise without being minimalistic, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is the only source of information. It lists content categories but omits critical context such as read-only status, how data is aggregated, or what 'urgent' and 'recent' refer to. This leaves the agent with an incomplete understanding for a tool with no structured field support.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema covers the empty property set completely. The description correctly avoids explaining parameters, and the absence of parameters sets a baseline of 4; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 identifies the resource ('status board') and content categories ('agents, rooms, urgent, recent'), but lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get', 'show'), making it less clear as an actionable tool. It implies an aggregated view distinct from sibling tools, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `list_agents`, `list_rooms`, or `mailbox_stats`. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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