sage_message_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing the type of information returned (delivery, read confirmation, workflow state) and explicitly excluding presence/last-seen/comprehension. It could add more about error cases or what happens if the message doesn't exist, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the full purpose, and the second clarifies what it is not. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the informational content (delivery, read confirmation, workflow state) and the scoping constraint. It could be more complete by describing edge cases like non-existent messages or permissions, but it is still well above the minimum for selecting the 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?

The schema only provides a generic 'message_id' string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context by stating the message must be 'one exact message sent by this caller,' which clarifies the ID's expected scope. However, it doesn't explain how to obtain the message_id or its format, leaving some gaps.

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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Inspect' the delivery, read confirmation, and workflow state for a single exact message. It distinguishes itself from other status-like tools by explicitly stating it is not presence, last-seen, or comprehension evidence, which differentiates it from siblings like sage_status or sage_pipe_receipt_status.

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 clearly scopes usage to 'one exact message sent by this caller,' implying it is for the user's own outgoing messages. The negative clause 'not presence, last-seen, or comprehension evidence' provides exclusions but does not explicitly name alternative tools, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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