agent_read_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the destructive nature of 'clear' (permanently removes cached inbox entries), the side effect of mark_read (advances the local read cursor), and the local caching behavior. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or return shape, but the most important behavioral side effects are covered.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter-specific guidance and a clear pointer to an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the main behavior, side effects, and alternative tool usage, which is sufficient for a read-oriented tool with an output schema present. It does not elaborate on how room join/leave events are ordered or whether limit applies to both messages and events, but these are minor gaps given the schema and output schema.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the tool description adds meaningful semantics for only_unread (filter by cursor), mark_read (advances cursor), and clear (permanent removal after reading). The limit parameter is not explained in the description, but the schema provides min/max constraints. This is a strong compensation for the schema gap.

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') and resource ('locally cached incoming messages and room join or leave events'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with room_info ('Use room_info for connection state, not this tool') and by framing this as a local, inbox-specific read operation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: reading local inbox messages/events. It also names an alternative tool for connection state and clarifies the behavior of key parameters (only_unread, mark_read, clear) to help the agent choose the right settings. The 'not this tool' phrasing further reinforces when NOT to use it.

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