agent_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite (check in first) and a time window (since last poll), but does not specify side effects such as whether messages are marked as read, whether polling state is reset, or if a separate acknowledgment (agent_ack) is needed. This is a notable gap for a tool that depends on polling state.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Reads', contains no filler, and conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is mostly complete, providing the purpose and a prerequisite. However, it omits details about what happens to the messages after reading (e.g., consumption, acknowledgment) and does not describe the output format, which may be important for a messaging tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since the schema is empty and fully covers the parameter space.

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 action (Reads), the resource (messages other agents sent to this machine), and the scope (since your last poll). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_send, agent_checkin, and agent_ack, which handle different aspects of agent messaging.

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?

It explicitly instructs to check in first with agent_checkin and clarifies that messages are those received since the last poll. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools by name.

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