message_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds useful behavioral context: return_route checks the sender, route_failure does not prove the app closed, unavailable transport can coexist with a saved or read reply, and unconfirmed status should prevent automatic resend. It stops short of declaring read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects explicitly.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then adds compact interpretation warnings. It is dense with semicolons but most sentences earn their place by preventing incorrect inferences.

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?

It explains important output-field nuances and cautions for a tool with no output schema, which is valuable. But it does not define the required id parameter, and it only partially covers the return structure, leaving an agent to infer how to identify the target message.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the single required parameter is only named 'id'. The description does not explain whether this is a message ID, reply ID, session ID, or another identifier, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resources: inspect automatic transport, mailbox/read evidence, and correlated reply IDs. It is clear this is a diagnostic status/evidence tool rather than a sender, replier, or acknowledgement tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like decision_status or inbox.

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?

It provides operational guidance such as showing delivery_note first and not automatically resending when status is unconfirmed. However, it does not state an explicit when-to-use condition or name an alternative sibling tool for overlapping inspection tasks.

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