syncky_inbox

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: a 30-day retention window, the guarantee that reads do not ACK or delete, the pagination cursor pattern, and a security warning to treat inner data as untrusted. The only flaw is that it refers to 'next_after_seq' while the schema parameter is 'after_seq', which could confuse an agent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loading retention and safety posture before pagination, with no filler. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a complete statement of action, which costs a little clarity but not length.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no title, the description omits the meaning of most parameters, the ordering or shape of returned history, and the relation to the sibling ACK flow. Only the retention window, pagination cursor, and security caveat are covered.

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 six parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden, yet it only touches pagination via after_seq. The filtering semantics of type, since, until, member (with its m_agent/m_dev pattern), and limit are left entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 presents the resource as 'private raw authenticated JSON history' with a 30-day retention, and the name suggests an inbox read, but it never states an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve messages'. The line 'Reads never ACK or delete' does implicitly distinguish it from syncky_ack, but an agent must infer the core action from the tool name alone.

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?

'Reads never ACK or delete' implies that acknowledging is a separate step and 'paginate after next_after_seq' gives a concrete iteration instruction. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus syncky_status or syncky_skill, so the guidance remains implied rather than directive.

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