Retrieve this session's saved personal-agent question and reply content without resending or marking it read; use it to inspect answers that were saved but not delivered.
Retrieve this session's existing personal-agent question and reply content, without resending or marking it read. Saved is not delivered. Never collect another session's answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| sender | No | ||
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the call is non-mutating (does not resend or mark read) and adds a non-obvious delivery caveat ('Saved is not delivered') plus a session-isolation constraint. It omits the most consequential runtime behavior: wait_seconds implies a blocking/long-poll wait of up to 30 seconds, which is never mentioned.
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?
Three short sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. 'Saved is not delivered' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but the text is otherwise appropriately sized.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, with 0% parameter coverage, so the description needs to explain what is returned and how waiting works. It handles the side-effect profile reasonably but leaves the return shape and the id/sender/wait_seconds semantics unexplained, which is inadequate for a three-parameter 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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It gives no explanation of what 'id' identifies, what 'sender' filters, or that 'wait_seconds' is a bounded 0–30 second poll delay, leaving every non-required parameter semantically opaque.
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 (Retrieve) and the resource (this session's existing personal-agent question and reply content), scoped to the current session. It differentiates itself from acknowledge/reply siblings by explicitly saying it does not resend or mark anything read. It is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns the question, the reply, or a status, but the core purpose is identifiable.
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?
Phrases like 'without resending or marking it read' implicitly contrast with acknowledge_personal_message and reply_personal_message, and 'Never collect another session's answer' scopes usage to the current session. However, no explicit when-to-use condition is given, and it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named message_status or decision_status siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.