handoff_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the most important thing: a prompt-injection warning that reply text is untrusted and must not be acted on without user confirmation. It also discloses ordering (oldest first) and the status vocabulary, though it never states read-only-ness or whether consuming the inbox marks items answered.

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, both earning their place: the first identifies the resource and ordering, the second delivers the security constraint. The ordering detail and the trust warning are front-loaded rather than buried.

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 security framing is unusually complete, but with no output schema the description should sketch the returned shape; 'the text in the reply' hints at a reply field without defining it, and the default filter behavior is unstated. It is adequate rather than complete for a retrieval tool.

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?

There is a single optional enum parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It echoes the enum values (new or answered) but does not say what omitting status returns — presumably both — which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved.

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 concrete resource and scope: notes left by another agent in the desk's inbox folder, returned oldest first with a status. It distinguishes 'inbox' from the outbox side of the handoff family implicitly, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 only implied by 'what the agent left for Claude' — an agent can infer this is how you pick up peer messages, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-handoff_read/handoff_wait/handoff_list guidance.

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