wirebox_imessage_list_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' and 'active' signal a read-only, filtered query scoped to the agent, and the output fields are disclosed. However, it does not state whether the call has side effects (e.g., changing unread state), whether special permissions are needed, or how conversations are ordered.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then lists the output fields. There is no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description names the main return fields and agent scoping, which is enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps remain—'active' is undefined and no ordering/default behavior is stated—but optional parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little to parameter meaning beyond linking the tool to an agent identity; limit, cursor, and identity are already fully documented in the input schema.

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 states a specific action—'List'—on a specific resource, 'active iMessage conversations for this agent,' and names the included fields: participants, last message timestamp, and unread count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wirebox_imessage_get_messages and wirebox_mail_list.

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 the read-only listing use case and scopes the tool to conversations, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over wirebox_imessage_get_messages or provide when-not/alternative guidance. An agent must infer the distinction from the word 'conversations' rather than from direct routing advice.

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