Check sent messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: sort order (newest first), the default filter (unacknowledged only), and the per-entry payload (ping outcome plus recipient liveness state). It omits pagination/truncation behavior and whether results are capped silently at the limit.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then appends the return payload. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does name the ordering and the two per-entry signals. The one remaining gap is behavior at the limit boundary (pagination vs silent truncation), which matters for a 200-cap list tool.

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. The description usefully implies the default state of includeAcknowledged (excluded), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (list direct messages an agent sent), plus the defining scope: unacknowledged by the recipient. The word 'sent' cleanly separates it from bridge_inbox and bridge_thread without needing to name them.

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 conveys the situation the tool serves (checking on sent messages the recipient hasn't acknowledged) and the ordering, but never states when to reach for it instead of bridge_inbox, bridge_thread, or bridge_wait, nor any prerequisite for the 'agent' value.

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