entangled_check_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about the significant side effect that mark_as_read defaults to true (the call mutates inbox state), nor about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on an empty inbox – critical omissions for a tool that is read-and-mutate by default.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and the action front-loaded and no filler. The bracket tag is trivial overhead, but the second sentence is genuinely load-bearing usage guidance rather than padding.

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 need not be described. However, with four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an undisclosed default mutation (mark_as_read=true), the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely or predictably.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description adds nothing about any of them – not the required agent_id, the limit default of 10, the unread_only default, or the consequential mark_as_read default. It leaves parameters that materially change behavior (a destructive-ish state mutation) entirely 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 (checks) and resource (inbox) plus the subject (messages or instructions sent to this agent CLI). It is distinguishable from the send/broadcast siblings by implication, but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Call this at the beginning of a session or task" gives a clear triggering context, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a polling tool. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives among the ten siblings, so it is clear-context-without-alternatives rather than a 5.

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