tool_get_recent_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions default values and optional filtering, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what 'recent messages' includes (e.g., message count limits). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by structured parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose and parameters more seamlessly.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks information on return values, error cases, and behavioral constraints, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'hours' as 'Number of hours to look back (default: 24)' and 'contact' with detailed filtering options including a specific syntax. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get recent messages from the Messages app.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent messages'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'tool_fuzzy_search_messages' or 'tool_get_chats', which prevents a perfect score.

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 through parameter explanations (e.g., 'hours' for time range, 'contact' for filtering), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tool_fuzzy_search_messages' or 'tool_get_chats'. It provides some context but lacks clear when/when-not guidance.

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