androidapi_get_sms_sent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'paginated', indicating that results are returned in pages. This adds value beyond annotations, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like ordering, filtering, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key information (action, resource, pagination) efficiently.

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?

With no output schema and a 0% parameter coverage, the description is too brief. It does not specify the data fields returned, pagination behavior details (e.g., default limit, maximum page size), or how to handle response errors. This is inadequate for a tool with two parameters and no schema documentation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'page' and 'limit' parameters. The word 'paginated' hints at their purpose but lacks explicit mapping. The agent must infer meaning, which reduces usability.

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 action ('List') and resource ('sent SMS messages'), and includes 'paginated' to indicate result handling. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_sms_received or get_sms_pending by specifying 'sent'.

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 retrieving sent SMS messages, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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