wirebox_imessage_get_messages

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that history is fetched; it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the response is a list object. The schema's cursor description hints at pagination, but the tool description itself adds no behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object; no filler or redundancy.

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/retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the one-sentence description plus fully documented parameters is workable, but the agent is left without explicit return-shape, ordering, or pagination details. The schema covers the call inputs, so the description is adequate but not 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%, with each of the four parameters already described. The description's phrase 'specific iMessage conversation' reinforces conversationId but adds no information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (message history for a specific iMessage conversation), and the phrase 'specific conversation' distinguishes it from sibling wirebox_imessage_list_conversations, which lists conversations rather than their messages.

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?

It clearly signals the intended use: retrieve messages from a single conversation, which implies use when conversationId is already known and not when listing conversations or sending messages. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the contrast with sibling names is strong.

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