read_poke_inbox

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope and side-effect context: it is limited to the paired connector's inbox, does not read chats, and does not interrupt another Codex chat.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. The primary scope is stated first, followed by a concise boundary clarification.

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 zero-parameter schema and rich annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could say more about the expected return shape or inbox contents, especially since there is no output schema, but that gap is minor for a simple read operation.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with the zero-parameter design.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reads the inbox paired to the limited connector. It also clarifies that it does not read chats, which helps distinguish its scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from named sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read only the inbox paired to your limited connector' and the exclusion 'Does not read chats,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_trusted_contacts or send_trusted_message.

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