yeastar_get_ivr

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read/get operation and that the ID comes from a list call, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or what is returned beyond the three example fields.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the purpose, adds concrete detail examples in parentheses, and states the prerequisite. No wasted 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?

For a single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke correctly after the list step. The only gaps are error handling and authorization, which are minor for this simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already says the id is 'Object ID, from the corresponding list tool.' The description adds the explicit tool name, but for the most part it restates rather than extends 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single IVR'), and enumerates what 'full detail' includes (key press mapping, prompts, timeout destination). It clearly distinguishes this detail-fetch tool from its list sibling, yeastar_list_ivrs.

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 specifies the prerequisite workflow: requires an ID from yeastar_list_ivrs. This gives clear context for when to call it, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative detail tools.

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