simpletexting_evaluate_messageDRY-RUN a message body to compute its segment count, whether it sends as SMS or MMS, and its estimated cost — WITHOUT sending anything. Safe and read-only. SimpleTexting REST: POST /messages/evaluate with JSON body {text, mode?}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Optional send mode to evaluate against (e.g. AUTO | SMS | MMS). | |
| text | Yes | The message body to evaluate. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it computes segment count, SMS/MMS type, cost, and mentions the API endpoint and request format. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the key verb 'DRY-RUN', and includes all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the computed outputs (segment count, SMS/MMS, cost) and provides the API endpoint. For a simple read-only tool with two parameters, this is fully self-contained.
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 both parameters are well-documented. The description adds minor context (API endpoint and request format) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 evaluates a message body to compute segment count, SMS/MMS type, and estimated cost, distinguishing it from sending. The verb 'dry-run' and emphasis on 'without sending anything' make the 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 explicitly says this is for evaluation only ('DRY-RUN', 'WITHOUT sending anything', 'Safe and read-only'), clearly indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sending tools or list when not to use it, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: evaluate vs send, get vs list for campaigns/contacts/media/messages, and update for contacts. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'simpletexting_verb_noun' pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are imperative (evaluate, get, list, send, update) and nouns use singular for get and plural for list, as expected.
11 tools is well-scoped for a messaging API, covering the core operations without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose and earns its place.
Significant gaps exist: no create or delete for contacts, campaigns, or media; no delete for messages. The surface is read-heavy with only send and update as write operations, limiting full lifecycle management.