read_my_replies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data sources (global inbox plus every registered project's `replies.jsonl`) and the sort order (most-recent-first). It omits any statement about return shape or how `limit` interacts with the cross-project aggregation, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core identification in the first sentence and follows with scope and then use cases. The two quoted example questions are useful framing, though the `replies.jsonl` file-path detail is closer to implementation trivia than agent-facing guidance.

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 read tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and typical questions it answers. It stops short of describing the returned reply records, which an agent might want given there is no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirectly, via the most-recent-first ordering that gives `limit` meaning; it says nothing extra about `search` or the `project` basename matching that the schema doesn't already cover.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (browse the OUTBOUND history of replies sent via `reply_to_user`) and capitalizes OUTBOUND to contrast with the sibling `read_user_inbox`. An agent can immediately tell this reads sent messages, not received ones.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use examples ("what was the last thing you said in this project?", "what did you tell me about X?") and names the originating tool `reply_to_user`. It lacks an explicit when-not / alternative-sibling statement (e.g. 'for inbound messages use read_user_inbox'), so it stops short of a 5.

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