team_inbox_check

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the mark-as-read mutation, the boundary that items beyond limit remain unread, and that wait blocks. However, it omits permissions, return shape, error behavior, and whether read-marking is reversible, leaving key mutation risks unexplained.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the main check/mark behavior, with no filler. But the telegraphic fragments and unexplained backticked terms make it hard to parse, so concision comes at the expense of structure.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: until_lane, unread_only, return values, wait duration semantics, and the meaning of 'acts' are all absent. It is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 define six parameters; it gives partial meaning for limit (read-marking boundary), ids (full reads of named acts), full (longer), and wait (blocks). It never mentions until_lane or unread_only, and 'full longer' / 'reads named acts in full' are too vague to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 opening clause names the action ('Check unread') and its side effect ('marking them read'), so the agent knows this is an inbox read that mutates read state. The tool name supplies the resource, but the description itself never says 'inbox' and leaves 'acts' undefined, so it is clear rather than rich.

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?

No sentence tells the agent when to choose this over team_memory_read, team_status, or any other sibling, nor when not to use it. The only usage signal is the implied 'check unread' context, with no guidance on ids/full/wait selection.

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