yeastar_get_trunk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful trait: SIP registration secrets and passwords are stripped from the response, and the connector never returns trunk auth credentials. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent set expectations about sensitive data.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and prerequisite come first, and the security behavior is a valuable second sentence. Every word 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 single-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned ('full detail'), where the ID comes from, and the important redaction behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape would be nice, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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 for the only parameter is 100%, with the id already documented as the object ID from the corresponding list tool. The description reinforces the source of the ID but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('full detail for a single trunk'), clearly differentiating it from list-style siblings like yeastar_list_trunks. It also correctly routes to the prerequisite list tool, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves.

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 gives clear context: it is for a single trunk and requires an ID from yeastar_list_trunks. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the prerequisite and single-item scope make the intended usage evident.

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