spix_call_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'List call sessions' and does not mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The schema includes limit and cursor parameters implying pagination, but the description fails to explain this behavior. It also does not clarify whether it returns only active or all sessions.

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 very concise—only three words—which is efficient for a straightforward list operation. It front-loades the essential action and resource. However, it could include a brief note about filtering or pagination without becoming verbose.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not describe the return format, the scope of results (e.g., all calls or filtered by user), or any side effects. The schema provides parameter details, but the description lacks high-level context about what constitutes a 'call session' and how the tool fits into the broader workflow.

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 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Filter by playbook', 'Filter by status', 'Number of results', 'Pagination cursor'). Since the schema already documents the parameters well, the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'List call sessions' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (call sessions). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like spix_call_show or spix_call_summary, the name and context of being a list tool are sufficient. The schema provides filtering options (playbook_id, status) which add clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, when not to use it, or any mention of related tools such as spix_call_show for individual calls or spix_call_summary for summaries. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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