add_inbox_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by referring to the inbox as 'the source of truth' and specifying 'open action item,' indicating a write operation to a canonical store. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility, leaving some aspects implicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage effectively. The presence of an output schema handles return values, and the usage guidance compensates for the lack of parameter specifics. Minor gaps remain regarding error cases or integration with other tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'text' parameter, and the description does not explicitly explain its format or content. However, the phrase 'Add an open action item' strongly implies that 'text' is the action item's text, providing minimal semantic value 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 clearly states the tool adds an open action item to the vault inbox, naming the resource and specifying the object ('open action item'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on action items rather than notes, making its purpose 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 says 'Use for tasks/follow-ups, not ideas or status,' providing both positive and negative usage cases. This helps the agent choose this tool over alternatives like create_note or append_daily.

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