simpletexting_list_messagesList the account's messages as a paged collection (inbound + outbound message history). SimpleTexting REST: GET /messages.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds that it returns paged inbound+outbound messages and mentions the REST endpoint, but no further behavioral details are provided.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and additional REST context. No redundant or unnecessary wording.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's behavior for a simple list operation with two optional params. It states the scope (all account messages) and pagination. However, with no output schema, a brief description of response fields would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both page (zero-based) and size (1-100). The description mentions 'paged collection' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 lists account messages as a paged collection including inbound and outbound history. It distinguishes from siblings like get_message (single) and send_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?
The description implies usage for listing message history but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_message. Sibling names provide context but no direct guidance is given.
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.