imessage-mcp

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, which the description aligns with by describing a retrieval operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned (members with counts, activity timeline, recent messages), enhancing transparency about the tool's output and scope without contradicting 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Detailed info on a specific group chat') and succinctly lists the key data returned. Every part earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving detailed chat data), rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the data scope but could improve by mentioning output format or limitations (e.g., pagination). However, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's function and use it effectively.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'chat_id' and 'name' parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., using both parameters together) or providing examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('get', 'Detailed info on') and resources ('a specific group chat'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_group_chats' (which lists chats) and 'get_conversation' (which likely handles individual conversations). It specifies the scope of information returned: members with counts, activity timeline, and recent messages.

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 detailed data about a specific group chat, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_conversation' or 'get_thread'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for selection, leaving usage inferred rather than clearly defined.

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