sage_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: messages are claimed when returned (a side effect), payloads are untrusted agent-supplied content and must not be treated as instructions, authorization should be independently verified, and two item types (message items vs. one-way task notices) require different handling. This is rich, non-obvious context.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each subsequent sentence adds essential value: claiming behavior, alternate checks, security guidance, and item-type distinctions. No sentence is redundant or filler.

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 simple input schema and absence of output schema/annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, side effects, security handling, related tool usage, and message-type semantics, providing everything an agent needs to invoke the tool effectively.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is already fully documented in the schema with a default value and description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check your unified inbox for task assignments and messages sent by local or federated agents.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming sage_message_reply, sage_message_status, and sage_backlog for related but distinct operations.

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 provides explicit situational guidance: use this tool for inbox checking, use sage_message_reply for replying to claimed messages, use sage_message_status to check replies when the inbox appears clean, and use sage_backlog to verify one-way task assignments. This clearly states when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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