sage_inbox

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses atomic claiming for pipeline items (a state change) and the need for follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly state whether items are removed or marked upon reading, leaving some ambiguity about mutation.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage guidelines. No wasteful words, information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the two item types, their handling, and follow-up steps. It lacks details on return format or behavior on empty inbox, but is sufficient for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'limit' parameter. The description's mention of 'Max items to return' adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool checks a unified inbox for task assignments and pipeline work. It specifies the resource (inbox) and verb (check), and distinguishes from siblings like sage_backlog (for verification) and sage_pipe_result (required for pipeline items).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool and what to do after: pipeline items are atomically claimed and require sage_pipe_result; task assignments require no result and should be verified in sage_backlog. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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