calls_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at query capabilities, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it supports pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all calls') followed by a key feature ('with optional filtering'). Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient despite its limitations in completeness.

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 tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how filtering works, what the parameters mean, or how this differs from similar tools. The minimal description fails to provide the context needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'optional filtering' generically without explaining what parameters are available, what they do, or how to use them. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters essentially undocumented.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('calls'), specifying the action and target. It mentions 'optional filtering' which adds context about functionality. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'calls_search' or 'calls_get', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_search' or 'calls_get'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings. The phrase 'optional filtering' is too vague to constitute meaningful usage guidance.

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