List conversation history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read', which signals a non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects (none expected), rate limits, pagination behavior, or default ordering. The 'recent' qualifier hints at a time-based filter but adds minimal context. It does not contradict annotations but leaves room for more behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and the resource ('recent conversation history'). It is concise with no wasted words or redundant information. Every part contributes to the core meaning.

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 list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but has gaps. It does not explain the return format, the default limit, or the mutual exclusivity of 'phone' and 'group_chat_id' (though 'or' hints at it). It also does not mention sorting or pagination. Given the simplicity of the tool, these omissions are acceptable but not ideal.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the clarification that the tool works for a phone number or group chat, which mirrors the schema's descriptions. It does not add meaningful detail about the 'limit' parameter or specify that 'phone' and 'group_chat_id' are mutually exclusive, so the value added over the schema is minimal.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('recent conversation history') with a scope ('for a phone number or group chat over a Blue Reacher line'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like send_imessage, get_message_status, and check_imessage_capability by focusing on reading history, not sending or status checking.

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 reading history, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It does not name sibling tools or provide conditions that select between them, leaving the agent to infer that reading history is the purpose based on the verb. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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