rcs_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It fails to explain what 'Handle' means operationally—e.g., whether it sends events, registers callbacks, or modifies state. Side effects and requirements are undisclosed.

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, which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It sacrifices useful details for brevity, making it insufficiently informative.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and the tool's complexity (multiple parameter interactions for different event types), the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error behavior, or usage patterns for each event type.

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% with brief descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds marginal value by grouping event types but does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., why 'phone' and 'to' both exist). Redundancy (message_id/msg_id) is not clarified.

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 lists specific event types (delivery reports, read receipts, IS_TYPING), indicating it deals with RCS events. However, the verb 'Handle' is vague; it does not clarify whether this tool sends or receives these events, leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_rcs' or 'delete_rcs'. The description does not specify context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without help in choosing this tool.

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