message_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is READ-ONLY and enumerates the possible status values, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about permissions, whether status is eventually consistent, or how 'parked' differs operationally, leaving real behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight clauses with the scope ('you SENT') and the read-only nature front-loaded; every element carries information. The inline set notation is dense but readable.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies scope, the return shape's key fields, and the read-only guarantee, which is enough to call it correctly. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values in detail.

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% and the single parameter's origin (message_id from message_create) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: tracking per-recipient delivery states for a message the caller SENT. The 'you SENT' scoping and the enumerated states (unread/delivered/read/parked) make it distinguishable from generic siblings like message_get or message_list, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Track a message you SENT' implies the usage context and requires a message_id from message_create, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternative tool named for adjacent needs (e.g., reading message content vs. tracking its delivery).

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