proofpoint_tap_get_messages_delivered

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral nuance: these are messages that reached the recipient's mailbox despite containing threats, indicating a read-only query. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, default time ranges, pagination, or potential hazards. This is adequate but not rich, warranting a 3.

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, consisting of two short sentences that state the core purpose and a clarifying elaboration. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundancies or filler exist.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only the basic purpose but omits details such as whether a time interval is required, how results are ordered, or how to combine parameters. While the schema documents parameters, additional context about tool behavior would improve completeness. This is adequate but not fully complete, earning a 3.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including an enum for threatStatus, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 gets messages delivered containing threats, which are messages that reached the recipient's mailbox despite containing identified threats. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like proofpoint_tap_get_messages_blocked and proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_permitted, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool by explicitly defining the scope: messages that reached the mailbox despite threats. This contrasts with the likely use of proofpoint_tap_get_messages_blocked. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of 'explicit when/when-not' guidance, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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