get_trunk_details

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns configuration data (read operation). Does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but the operation is straightforward and likely safe.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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 simple interface (one required param, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite, and return content. Could mention if it requires any special permissions, but not critical for this read operation.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with coverage 100%. The description adds value by specifying that the ID comes from list_trunks, providing context 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 action ('Returns full configuration'), the specific resource ('a specific SIP trunk'), and includes details about what is returned (registration, codecs, routes, authentication). It also distinguishes from sibling tool list_trunks by noting the prerequisite.

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?

Explicitly instructs to get trunk ID from list_trunks first, indicating a prerequisite. Does not state when to avoid using it, but given the context, usage is clear for retrieving details after listing.

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