inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by stating "Does not mark them read; use ack_inbox for that," which discloses the key side-effect boundary. It also scopes results to "this session's unread inbox items," but does not elaborate on ordering, freshness, or whether repeated calls have any other effects.

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 two tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose and following with behavioral and alternative-use guidance. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition 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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it states what is listed, the scope, the non-marking behavior, and sibling alternatives. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps because the schema coverage is complete and no inputs exist.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List this session's unread inbox items" and enumerates the item types (changes, questions, tasks, decisions, conflicts). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming ack_inbox, query, and decisions as alternatives for different jobs.

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 states when not to use this tool: use ack_inbox to mark items read, query to search the ledger by topic, and decisions to list decisions. These are concrete alternatives tied to specific user intents, leaving little ambiguity for an agent choosing among siblings.

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