Pilot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'by keyword' but fails to specify search scope (message body vs. sender), case sensitivity, return format, or result limits.

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 four-word description contains no redundancy and front-loads the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical gaps rather than demonstrating efficient information density.

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, annotations, or parameters, the description must explain return values and behavioral constraints. It fails to specify what data is returned (message objects vs. IDs) or search limitations, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, warranting the baseline score of 4. The description implies keyword-based filtering, though without explicit parameters to document, no additional semantic clarification is possible.

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 identifies the action (Search) and resource (iMessages), distinguishing it from email or note search siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'read_messages' or 'list_message_chats'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'read_messages' or 'list_message_chats', nor does it mention prerequisites like access permissions or iCloud account requirements.

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