whatify_message_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or response format. For a simple status check, it is acceptable but could be richer.

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 sentence, 15 words, with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and required input.

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's simplicity (1 param, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the basic input and purpose. However, it lacks information about the expected output or response structure, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret the result.

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 the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It reiterates that the ID is from a previous send call, which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'delivery status', clearly stating the action and object. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like send_message or list tools, as it is the only one for retrieving status of a previously sent message.

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 implies that the tool should be used after sending a message, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, but given the single purpose, the guidance is minimally adequate.

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