ACTION_WAIT_CALL_END

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does well on mechanics—one-second polling, the required READ_PHONE_STATE permission, output keys call_ended/call_error, and the notable 3-second no-call short circuit that yields call_ended=true—but says nothing about blocking side effects on workflow execution or how a mid-wait call_error is produced.

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?

Purpose, permission requirement, outputs, and the edge case are front-loaded in a compact block. Minor waste remains: a duplicated '。。' separator and the interpolation/return-format sentence tacked on without clear grouping.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and describing the degenerate no-call case, plus the permission prerequisite. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the interaction between timeout_ms and the short-circuit condition is left to inference.

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 four parameters including timeout_ms semantics are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The one addition, that string parameters accept ${var} interpolation, is genuine value not in the schema, but the timeout/require parameters themselves are not elaborated in the description.

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?

States a specific blocking action and resource: '阻塞等待当前通话挂断', with the polling mechanism in parentheses. It is clearly distinguishable from non-blocking siblings like ACTION_GET_CALL_STATE, though it does not explicitly name ACTION_WAIT_CALL_ANSWER as the contrasting alternative.

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 preconditions (an active call, READ_PHONE_STATE permission) but never says when to choose this over ACTION_WAIT_CALL_ANSWER or ACTION_GET_CALL_STATE, nor when not to use it. Usage is inferable from the name and the blocking semantics, but not stated.

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