list_trunks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes the return values but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds details and links to the sibling tool. There is no wasted text, and all information is front-loaded.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains the return values by listing the fields. It also directs users to the sibling for more detail. It is complete for its purpose.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe beyond that. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and no additional semantics are required.

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 that the tool returns all SIP trunks, lists the specific fields (Id, Number, Name, IsOnline, etc.), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_trunk_details by directing users to use that for full details. This provides a specific verb+resource distinction.

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 says to use this tool for listing trunks and recommends get_trunk_details for deeper details. It gives clear context but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative names beyond the mentioned sibling.

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