homer_correlate_callid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool wraps an API query returning correlated IDs. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The behavioral transparency is insufficient.

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 three sentences (approximately 50 words) with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and includes necessary technical context without excess. It is efficiently written.

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 has 3 required parameters and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the time range parameters, nor any prerequisites or behavioral traits. Although an output schema exists, the input context is incomplete for a correct tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description only explains the 'callid' parameter implicitly. It fails to explain 'from_ts' and 'to_ts' which define the time range for correlation. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: correlating a Call-ID across OpenSIPS hops. It uses specific verbs ('correlate') and resource ('Call-ID'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on correlation across hops. No tautology.

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 explains when to use the tool (when topology_hiding or B2BUA is present, to find sibling Call-IDs). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like homer_search_calls for basic call search. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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