sage_message_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It explicitly states the non-mutating nature ('without claiming, acknowledging, or re-queueing'), durability semantics ('Canonical Messages remain durable... only deprecated pipe rows use the legacy transient window'), untrusted payloads, and authorization caveat ('no label establishes authorization'). This gives the agent a robust safety and trust model.

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 longer than average (seven sentences) but is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and usage. The later sentences about identity and label provenance are dense but critical for correctly interpreting returned data. No sentence is wasted, though it leans verbose.

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?

Despite having no annotations or output schema, the description covers operational semantics, durability, security, identity authority, label fallback behavior, and folder-specific usage. It implies return fields like claimant_session_id and workflow state, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the folder parameter by detailing inbox/outbox use cases and explaining that counterparty_agent is the authoritative identity. However, it adds no new semantics for the limit parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence, 'Browse your retained message inbox or outbox without claiming, acknowledging, or re-queueing a message,' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and actively differentiates it from siblings by noting what it does NOT do. It also references sage_message_handoff, distinguishing its role in the workflow.

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 explicitly maps folder values to concrete use cases: 'Use folder="inbox" to reopen a message after it was claimed or completed, inspect its claimant_session_id, or hand it to this runtime with sage_message_handoff; use folder="outbox" to revisit a message you sent and its workflow state.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and context, eliminating ambiguity.

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