list_replies_to_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by exposing the underlying query semantics (the `in_reply_to` ↔ `from_agent` join) and the timestamp-based filtering behavior, though it says nothing about pagination or result ordering.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by precise semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 no output schema, the description correctly explains what the tool returns (handoffs whose `in_reply_to` references one of yours). For a simple, read-only list tool this is nearly complete, though it omits default result count and ordering, which are relevant to the caller.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including `since` and `limit`. The description largely restates the `since` semantics rather than adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (handoffs) with a precise scope: only replies to handoffs you sent. The second sentence defines the exact join condition (`in_reply_to` referencing a handoff with your `agent_name` as `from_agent`), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `list_handoffs`.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping (use when you want replies to your own handoffs), but the description never explicitly names alternatives like `list_handoffs` or `search_bus`, nor states when not to use it. A reader can infer the context but gets no routing guidance.

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