mesh_read_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it states the operation is instant, a local SQLite read, and never blocks. It also explains ring ordering, the dependency on mesh_answer_ring, room transcript recording boundaries, and the precise meaning of dropped and central_dropped.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers necessary behavioral detail. The dropped explanation is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema, though the parenthetical style could be tightened.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains returned sections, ordering, blocking behavior, transcript limitations, and dropped-event counters. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some practical meaning for room_topic ('read one room only') but does not mention limit or otherwise extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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: reading the inbox contents that have arrived. It enumerates the exact content types returned (rings, rooms, threaded messages, help broadcasts), making the tool's scope distinct from generic read or room-listing siblings.

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 implies usage by describing what arrives and notes that passing room_topic reads one room only. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives such as mesh_recall, mesh_rooms, or mesh_lobby_transcript, nor does it state when not to use it.

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