read_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation (though 'read' implies it), nor does it describe any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on usage context.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks context on what the returned messages look like, how they are ordered, or any limitations. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and include_group_chats) with defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads recent iMessages from the Messages app, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_messages and get_conversation by focusing on 'recent' messages, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_recent_chats which might be similar.

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 reading recent messages but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_messages or get_conversation. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given, so the agent must infer context from the name and siblings.

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