send_sms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool sends an SMS (a mutation), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., charges, delivery status), error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. This is insufficient for an agent to reason about risks or expectations.

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 of 14 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices important behavioral details, preventing a higher score.

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 no annotations, output schema, or sibling tools, the description must provide comprehensive context. It covers purpose and parameters but omits critical operational aspects like success/failure indicators, delivery guarantees, message length limits, or authentication requirements. This is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context 'international format' for toNumber and 'optional' for fromNumber, which are already present in the schema descriptions. No new semantic value is added 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Send' and identifies the resource as 'SMS message via SMSPM', clearly defining the tool's purpose. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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 states required parameters (recipient phone in international format, message text, optional sender name) but does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Since no sibling tools exist, the lack of alternatives is acceptable, but the absence of usage conditions like message length limits or cost implications reduces guidance.

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