list_sent_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly indicates this is a read-only list operation, states that messages are 'captured' (not actively sent), and documents both the scope ('channel or all') and the ordering ('newest first'). This goes beyond a bare verb and gives useful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two short lines that state the action, scope, ordering, and the two most important filters. Every sentence contributes information without unnecessary fluff.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for the core listing use but omits semantics for status/test_id/limit and does not mention alternative tools. The output schema covers return values, so the main remaining gap is optional parameter guidance and sibling differentiation.

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 description adds value for two parameters: it lists the allowed channel values and defines 'app' as a registered app name filter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves limit, status, and test_id entirely unexplained, relying on their self-explanatory titles and defaults.

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 states a specific action ('List captured messages') and a clear resource scope ('for a channel (or all)'), with an explicit ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_message_detail by focusing on the list behavior rather than a single message.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: listing captured messages, optionally filtered by channel or app. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing makes the intended use straightforward compared to the other listing and simulation tools.

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