Informe de llamadas por trabajador

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context (aggregation, name resolution) but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, output format, or time zone handling). With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value.

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 concise sentences: first summarizes the report metrics, second adds name resolution. No redundancy, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Despite annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description omits critical details: required parameter combinations for a day vs. range, output format (e.g., list of extensions with stats), and whether pagination or limits apply. As a report tool, this leaves the agent uncertain about usage.

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% with basic descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds that the tool works for a day or range, but does not explain parameter combinations (e.g., whether 'date' conflicts with 'from'/'to'). Baseline 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 clearly states it's a productivity report per extension for a day or range, specifying metrics (outbound calls made/answered, inbound answered, minutes online) and name resolution. This differentiates it from list tools like pbx_list_calls and pbx_calls_in_range.

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 use for aggregated productivity reports, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like pbx_list_calls or pbx_calls_in_range. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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