yeastar_get_inbound_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only 'get' operation returning 'full detail' for one route and warns that an ID is required, but it does not disclose error behavior for an invalid/missing ID or describe the return shape.

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 short sentences front-load the action and then give the prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives the operation, the required parameter, and where to obtain its value, which is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of return-value and error detail, but this is minor at this complexity level.

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 schema already fully documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description names the exact source list tool, but this largely echoes the schema's 'corresponding list tool' and adds no new value constraints or formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inbound route'), and clarifies it is for 'a single' route, distinguishing it from the list tool and from outbound-route getters. The ID prerequisite reinforces exactly what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly states the tool requires an ID from yeastar_list_inbound_routes, so an agent knows to list routes first and then fetch details. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the inbound/single scope makes the intended context clear.

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