get_sms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves SMS messages and returns them as JSON, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, data scope (e.g., time range, limit), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like data limits or error cases, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with sensitive data (SMS).

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'number', explaining it can be a phone number or '*' for all SMS, with a default value. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't specify format (e.g., with country code).

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SMS messages'), and distinguishes between getting all messages or from a specific number. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_sms' or 'get_contacts', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 mentioning the default behavior ('*' to get all SMS) and the option to filter by number, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_contacts' or 'send_sms'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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