list_sms_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the response shape (summary of remote number, snippet, count) but does not mention pagination, ordering, or that full message contents are not returned. This is moderate behavioral disclosure.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose, one for return values, and a concise Args block. No redundant wording.

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?

For a list operation with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the response summary and parameter behaviors. It lacks explicit guidance on pagination or ordering, but overall is adequate. A small gap is not mentioning relationship to get_sms_thread.

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 0%, but the description explicitly defines both parameters: phone_number_id filters by number with all conversations when omitted, and limit sets max results with 1-100 range and default 20. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'List' with the resource 'SMS conversation threads' and explicitly states the return summary fields (remote number, last message snippet, message count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sms_thread or search_sms.

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 by listing optional filters (phone_number_id, limit) but does not explicitly identify when to use this tool over alternatives like get_sms_thread for individual threads or search_sms for targeted search. No exclusions are given.

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