List your reusable test suites (each is a set of scenarios/personas pinned to a target voice agent). Returns their ids, names, targets, and schedules — use a suite id with run_test or get_trends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only operation via the verb 'List' and discloses return contents. It doesn't cover error cases or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides value: definition of suite, return fields, and follow-up usage. No unnecessary words.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what a suite is, what the tool returns, and how to use the results with other tools. There is no missing critical information.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The empty input schema is fully covered by the absence of params, and the description adds no ambiguity. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 'List your reusable test suites' with a specific verb and resource, and explains what a suite is. It distinguishes from siblings like list_monitors and run_test by specifying the resource type and return fields (ids, names, targets, schedules).
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 provides a clear use case by stating 'use a suite id with run_test or get_trends,' which tells the agent when to use this tool and how the result connects to other tools. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a list operation.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct by resource (monitors, suites, flows, numbers, recordings), but run_test and test_flow could be confused since both execute tests, though their scopes differ. The descriptions help disambiguate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, get_, list_, run_, verify_, etc.), with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even compound names like get_monitor_health and verify_number_confirm remain predictable.
At 16 tools, the set is slightly above the optimal 3-15 range, but the breadth of the voice-agent testing/monitoring domain justifies each tool's existence. It feels well-scoped rather than bloated.
The tool set lacks update/delete operations for most entities (monitors, suites, flows) and omits a get_run tool to retrieve individual live test results, leaving significant gaps that agents cannot work around. This will cause failures in lifecycle management and live-run result retrieval.
