read_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses unread-cursor semantics via peek, pagination behavior via limit, and inbox/outbox content differences. However, it does not explicitly state the side effect of a normal (non-peek) read beyond implying the cursor advances.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organizes parameter details in a scannable list. Every line adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The description covers most operational behavior and parameter semantics, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The main missing piece is the project parameter, which prevents full completeness for a 5-parameter tool with minimal schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains agent, box, limit, and peek with meaningful detail. The project parameter is left undocumented, leaving one gap in an otherwise strong parameter explanation.

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 clear verb and resource: read directed messages in inbox/outbox. It distinguishes itself from get_board, which auto-displays unread messages and marks them delivered, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool instead of get_board: for reviewing history, confirming no missed messages, and checking receipts on sent messages. This gives an agent concrete routing guidance among siblings.

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