Listar llamadas (CDR)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's safe and non-deterministic. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: the max 50 records, ordering by most recent, and the requirement of a time range. No contradictions exist.

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 concise sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key limitation and an alternative. Every sentence adds value without waste. This is a model of efficient documentation.

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?

Given the tool is read-only with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, limitation, and usage guidance well. However, it omits any indication of what fields the returned CDR records contain (e.g., caller, direction, duration). Since there is no output schema, this lack of output description slightly reduces completeness for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the effect of parameters (max 50, ordering, range) but does not enhance understanding of individual parameter syntax or types. The schema descriptions are already clear. Thus, the description adds only marginal value 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 clearly states that the tool returns CDR (Call Detail Records), with a limit of 50 per request, most recent first, within a range. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'pbx_calls_in_range' by noting that the sibling handles pagination for larger periods. This specificity in verb ('list') and resource ('calls') with scope ('max 50, recent, range') earns a 5.

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 explicitly tells when not to use this tool (for whole day/period scanning) and directs to 'pbx_calls_in_range' as an alternative that paginates. It implicitly suggests this tool is for getting the most recent or top results within a range. However, it does not mention when to use other siblings like 'pbx_get_call' for a single call, which is a minor omission.

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