inbox

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses key behavioral details: it reads addressed messages, sorts oldest first, and only shows unread ones by default. It also specifies the exact return shape, which adds transparency beyond the bare schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant wording. Every clause is informative.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how to filter, ordering, and return format, which is sufficient given the simple schema and lack of an output schema. It does not discuss edge cases or pagination, but none are indicated as relevant.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: it explains 'agent' as the addressee and defines 'unread_only' as hiding already-acknowledged messages. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though 'agent' could use more detail about valid values.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('messages addressed to agent'), and ordering ('oldest first'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like send, ack, and ask_* which are not read-oriented.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies use for reading unacknowledged messages but does not compare to history or other read-like siblings, so guidance is absent.

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