pilot_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as whether messages are marked as read, how 'recent' is defined, sorting, or pagination. This is a minimal disclosure beyond the verb itself.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second provides usage context. Every word contributes to understanding, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage. It does not detail the message structure or return format, but 'List recent messages' implies a list return. The omission of alternative tool differentiation (e.g., pilot_received) is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, merely restating that it lists 'recent messages', which is already implied by the schema. No extra parameter semantics are provided.

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 that the tool 'List recent messages received from peers and specialists', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on 'messages received' rather than broader search or send operations, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the similarly named 'pilot_received'.

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 provides explicit guidance with 'Use this to read async A2A replies', telling the agent when to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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