outbox_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the possible statuses and the inclusion of the sent message id, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether repeated calls are safe (idempotent), what happens if the draft_id is invalid, or any side effects. This is a gap for a tool that may be called after operations like outbox_cancel.

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 a single, terse sentence that front-loads the core purpose (status of a draft) and then lists the possible values. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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 has one simple parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a basic call. However, it lacks context on when to use it (e.g., after sending a draft) and does not note that the output schema defines the return values; the description does not explicitly state that it returns a structured status object, though the status list implies it. It is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 compensate for the undocumented draft_id parameter. The description does not give additional semantic meaning for draft_id beyond its name; it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., integer ID of a draft) or constraints (e.g., must be an existing draft). Baseline is low due to 0% coverage, but the parameter is self-explanatory, so a score of 3 is moderate.

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 reports the status of a draft, enumerating possible statuses and noting the sent message id is included when sent. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like outbox_cancel or outbox_list, but the focus on status is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other outbox-related tools or message retrieval tools. It does not mention that it is for checking a draft's final state, nor does it exclude cases like drafts that are still pending. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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