Check on a call that was still ringing. Waits up to ~25s for it to settle; returns the final status and transcript once the human answers, declines, or the ring times out ("missed").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| call_id | Yes | ||
| session_token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses waiting behavior (~25s), possible outcomes (answers, declines, missed), and that it returns a transcript. This adds valuable context without contradicting annotations.
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 compact two-sentence structure, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concise behavioral details. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, how long it waits, and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema has no descriptions for the two parameters (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining 'call_id' or 'session_token'. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Check'), names the resource ('a call that was still ringing'), and clearly describes the outcome (returns final status and transcript). It distinguishes from siblings like 'call' (initiation) and 'wait_for_reply' (text reply) by focusing on polling a ringing call.
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 usage context: use it when a call was still ringing and you need to wait for the outcome. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough relative to sibling tools.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: call makes a voice call, poll_result checks on a ringing call, text sends a text, wait_for_reply waits for incoming messages, and set_thread_title names the thread. Even the two polling tools are differentiated by what they poll for (a call vs. general replies).
Tool names are all lower_snake_case but vary in structure: single verbs (call, text) vs. verb phrases (poll_result, set_thread_title, wait_for_reply). While readable, the pattern is not perfectly consistent across the set.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a personal communication server. Each tool covers a distinct and necessary capability without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the core workflows: initiating voice/text communication, polling for results, and waiting for replies. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit thread history retrieval or ability to cancel a call, but these are workable.