homer_get_call_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool returns captured SIP messages across proxies in timestamp order, explains the internal reconstruction mechanism, and notes strict time-window requirements. No contradictions with annotations (none 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?

Description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then mechanism, then a bulleted parameter list. It is front-loaded and concise, with no redundant sentences. Could slightly trim the endpoint explanation, but it is effective.

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's complexity (SIP transaction fetch), the presence of an output schema (so return values are handled), and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, parameter details, and sibling differentiation. It omits rate limits or authentication notes, but is otherwise complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear semantics: callid is 'Exact SIP Call-ID', from_ts and to_ts are 'Unix milliseconds' with the note that 'Homer is strict — the window must bracket the call start'. This goes beyond schema types.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Fetch the full SIP transaction ladder for a single Call-ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling homer_search_calls_v7 by explaining the mechanism (parameter flag and endpoint reuse), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's unique function.

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?

Description explains that it uses the same endpoint as homer_search_calls_v7 but reconstructs the transaction via a parameter, providing clear context for when to choose this tool. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, but the alternative is implied.

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