aiworkhub_completion_inbox

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

With readOnlyHint already present, the description still adds substantial context: it names the exact read-only taskctl commands used, explicitly excludes write commands, and clarifies it never launches agents or processes. It also explains stale_processing's default threshold and that runner_mismatch is a pure local replica of a named function.

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?

Front-loaded with READ-ONLY and the five-facet summary, then details each facet. Slightly repetitive on the no-mutation/never-launch guarantees, but every element is informative and ordered well.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description fully covers the read-only contract and facet meanings. The main gap is the undocumented limit and topic parameters, but overall it's sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 schema does no documentation work. The description clarifies stale_processing_hours (default 24h) but says nothing about limit or topic semantics, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb/resource: aggregates five named completion-inbox facets for Codex orchestration, and enumerates each facet (review_queue, operational_failures, stale_processing, runner_mismatch_warnings, latest_validation_facts). It implies a combined view versus individual sibling tools but doesn't name those 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?

The word 'combined' and the list of facets imply this is a convenient aggregate over separate queries, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus e.g. aiworkhub_task_review_queue or aiworkhub_task_stale_recovery_recommend. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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