list_sms

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states deprecation and removal of API classes, but does not explain what happens when called (e.g., empty result, error, or no-op). There is no information about authentication, side effects, or output behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the deprecation warning, making it efficient. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity; key information about behavior is missing. Despite this, it is not verbose and gets the core message across quickly.

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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and a deprecation context, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, error handling, or the consequences of using a deprecated tool. An agent would be left uncertain about what the tool actually returns.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (search and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond 'Get all SMS templates', which is already implied by the tool name. No parameter-specific details are provided.

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 retrieves all SMS templates and marks it as deprecated, which distinguishes it from other list tools like list_assets or list_campaigns. The verb 'Get' and resource 'SMS templates' are specific, but it does not mention the search/limit parameters that further refine purpose.

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 provides a deprecation warning but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. No alternative is suggested for listing SMS templates, and the phrase 'SMS API classes have been removed' implies potential failure but does not clarify expected behavior.

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