Imessage Conversations

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral traits of recency and sorting by last message date, but it does not disclose edge cases like whether archived conversations are included or how 'recent' is defined. Given the annotations, the description provides moderate additional context, not a rich behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action, resource, and ordering in a compact form, and every word contributes to the 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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety. The description conveys the essential behavior, and the limit parameter and return shape are handled by structured data. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema covers the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description and default, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra value to raise the score.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('recent iMessage conversations'), and an ordering criterion ('sorted by last message date'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like imessage_search, imessage_read, and imessage_unread, which have different purposes.

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: use this when you need a list of recent conversations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool vs. imessage_search or imessage_unread. There are no exclusions or routing hints, so the guidance is only implied.

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