ofw_get_unread_sent

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description exposes important behavior: it reads from local cache, includes a `complete` flag, and can refuse with UNVERIFIED_EMPTY if the cache is not fresh. The autoRefresh remedy is also disclosed, adding substantial value beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with the main action, then covers cache behaviorкну, return indicator, and the key edge case in a few efficient sentences with no 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?

For a read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely complete: it explains purpose, cache behavior, a key refusal case, and the remedy. The only notable omission is the shape of the returned message list itself, which is more noticeable because no output schema exists.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, including autoRefresh's behavior and defaults. The description reinforces autoRefresh's effect but adds no new page/size semantics, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('sent messages'), and a precise filter ('not been read by one or more recipients'). This semantically distinguishes it from sibling tools like ofw_list_messages without requiring the reader to open schemas.

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 context for using the tool is clear: it lists unread sent messages and can refresh on empty results. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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