agent_sent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the read-only nature ('Shows') and provides context about the data returned (delivery and acknowledgment info). However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as message recency, filtering, or scope beyond 'this machine.'

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by clarifying details. No filler 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns: sent messages with delivery and acknowledgment info. It could possibly mention the messaging context (e.g., agent mesh), but the name and sibling tools make this evident.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly implies that no input is needed. By default, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4, and there is no additional parameter semantics required.

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 uses the verb 'Shows' to specify a read operation, and clearly identifies the resource as 'what THIS machine sent,' with additional detail on delivery and acknowledgment status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_inbox (received) and agent_send (send).

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 implies a use case (checking sent messages and their delivery/ack status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like agent_inbox or agent_ack. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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