List my trunks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond listing IP ACL entries and error types. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, rich annotations) and the description covering the main output (trunk groups with IP ACLs), it is largely complete. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or ordering, but these are implicit for a list tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is no additional information needed 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 the tool lists all trunk groups with IP ACL entries, and explicitly directs the user to use it first to obtain a trunk_id for other trunk_* tools, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 advises using this tool first to find a trunk_id for related tools, providing clear usage context. It also lists possible errors (UNAUTHORIZED, INTERNAL_ERROR). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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