xete_check_inbox

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds valuable details: messages are decrypted in-process, server never holds keys, and returns sender, subject, time, and decrypted text. This goes beyond a simple read operation, though it does not cover potential side effects (which are unnecessary for a read) or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence identifies the purpose, and the second adds security and return details. Each sentence earns its place, and the whole is under 30 words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, behavioral details, and return fields. The presence of an output schema handles return structure, and the only notable gap is the missing explanation of the `limit` parameter, which is optional and inferable. Overall, it is nearly complete for the agent's needs.

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 input schema has only one parameter (`limit`) with no description, and the description itself does not mention `limit` at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain the parameter's meaning or behavior, leaving a significant 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 the tool reads the agent's xete inbox, using the specific verb 'Read' and identifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message by focusing on reading messages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for checking received messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any conditions. Since siblings cover other operations (identity, lookup, send), the context is somewhat clear, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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