simpletexting_list_mediaList the account's media items (MMS assets) as a paged collection. SimpleTexting REST: GET /media.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-based page number. | |
| size | No | Page size (1-100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns a paged collection. No details about pagination behavior, response format, or limits are disclosed beyond the schema.
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-loads the purpose, but the second sentence about the REST endpoint is not essential for the agent's decision-making. Still, no waste, earning a 4.
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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format. It only mentions 'paged collection' without details. Combined with good schema and annotation coverage, it is adequate but minimally complete.
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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'page' and 'size' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 it lists media items (MMS assets) as a paged collection, distinguishing it from the sibling 'simpletexting_get_media' which likely retrieves a single item. The verb 'list' and resource 'media items' are specific and 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'simpletexting_get_media'. Usage context is implied by the name and sibling list, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.