ofw_status

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it is a live call that may mutate state (marking messages as read via allowMarkRead, irreversible and co-parent-visible). It explains the verification logic and the meaning of the `complete` flag. This exceeds the annotation's false readOnlyHint by providing concrete details.

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 comprehensive and front-loaded with purpose, but it is relatively long. However, every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy, so its length is justified. Could be slightly more concise, but it remains efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields: state, sentAt, viewedAt, sentMessageId, and the top-level `complete` flag with its condition. It also clarifies edge cases (e.g., draftKeys resolving after sent). This covers all necessary behavioral context for an AI agent.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it explains the stable identity of draftKeys, why they are needed (OFW creates new IDs on edit), and how they resolve to states. It also clarifies the default behavior of includeDraftInventory and the implications of allowMarkRead.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'ONE live call that answers "where does everything stand?"' and specifies it returns the full current draft inventory verified against OurFamilyWizard, distinguishing it from session memory or cached reads. It also explains the behavior with optional parameters like ids and draftKeys.

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 provides clear usage context: 'This is the call that should back any status summary about drafts or specific messages — never session memory, and never a cached read alone.' It also explains when to use draftKeys and the allowMarkRead parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ofw_list_drafts or ofw_get_message, which would strengthen the guidelines.

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