List Vapi client status

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

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable extra behavioral context by disclosing that partial remote failures are returned in errors rather than failing the whole call. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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?

Two short sentences carry all the essential information, with the main action and resources front-loaded and the error-behavior detail placed second. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 still communicates the key returned data areas: client record, Vapi assistant, bound phone, latest call, and errors. It is sufficient for a single-parameter read operation, though a bit more detail about the shape of the errors field would remove remaining ambiguity.

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%, and the single parameter clientSlug is fully documented in the schema with format and pattern details. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific read operation and the exact resources being read: local client record, current Vapi assistant, bound phone, and latest call. This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation-oriented siblings like provision_client, attach_phone, and set_prompt_and_voice.

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 its use by saying 'Read' and by listing status-like data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over a sibling or when not to use it. There is no alternative tool mentioned, so the agent must infer the usage context from the sibling names.

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