list_routinesLists the person's routines: id, name, how many steps, and whether it stays open as a list. Give match to narrow by name. Read from the phone itself, which has to be reachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| match | No | Part of a name, to narrow the list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data comes from the phone itself and the phone must be reachable, which affects whether the call will succeed.
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 two sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose and the returned fields, followed by the optional filter and reachability constraint. There is no wasted text.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the fields returned and notes the phone reachability requirement. It is nearly complete for a simple list operation, though it could mention ordering or empty results.
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 coverage is 100%, so the `match` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates that it narrows by name but adds no syntax, matching rules, or format details beyond what is already provided.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists a person's routines and names the fields returned (id, name, step count, open-list status). It is clearly distinct from get_routine, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.
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 tells the agent to use `match` to narrow by name and notes that the phone must be reachable, which implies when the call is appropriate. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of get_routine or list_runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.