get_sent_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation (get sent messages) with no side effects or surprises. It clarifies that the messages are ones 'you've sent to others,' which is useful context. The slight ambiguity between 'an agent' and 'you' is resolved by the second sentence and the schema's 'Your agent_id' parameter.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, the two sentences are slightly redundant ('Get messages sent by an agent' and 'View messages you've sent to others' essentially repeat the same idea). Still, it is efficient and contains no 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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately implies the return value (messages). It does not explain interaction between the 5 parameters (e.g., how project filtering works), but the schema already covers those details. It is complete enough for an agent to 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The meaning of agent_id, limit, and project filters is fully defined in the schema, so the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get messages sent by an agent' and 'View messages you've sent to others.' This uses a specific verb (get/view) and a resource (sent messages) with clear scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_messages (which likely returns all messages).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need to view messages you've sent. It implies exclusion of received messages, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_messages. This is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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