grove_inbox

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavior beyond those: requires grove_read, dedupes by id, applies a merge cap after dedupe, and orders newest-first. That is genuine added context about permission and processing behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence defines the inbox, one line gives the permission, and an args block clarifies parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers message scope, authorization, defaults, dedupe behavior, and pagination cursor. The main shortfall is app_id and the lack of an explicit sibling alternative, but overall an agent can invoke this correctly.

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%, so the description must shoulder the burden. It explains agent, since_id, and limit well, including defaults and polling semantics. However, app_id is completely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a real parameter 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 identifies the resource: an agent's fleet inbox containing @mentions, direct bus messages, and the agent's dedicated channel. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like grove_bus_receive or grove_get_history, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

The message-source list and cursor parameter imply polling usage, and 'Requires grove_read' gives a prerequisite. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so the agent has to infer routing from the sibling list.

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