sms_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions required, or error states (e.g., if SMS not configured). It is minimally adequate.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and supported with details. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary fluff.

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 parameter-less read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes what is returned. Could optionally mention error conditions, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its purpose.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage trivially), so the description adds value by specifying the output: enabled status, phone number, and forwarding email. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the current SMS/phone number configuration' with specific verb and resource, and lists what it shows (enabled status, number, forwarding email). It distinguishes itself from sibling SMS tools that perform actions like sms_setup or sms_send.

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 is adequate but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites (e.g., requiring SMS setup). It implicitly serves as a read-only config check, but no exclusions or context are given.

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