yeastar_list_cdr

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 API-version targeting, optional time-bound behavior, and the lack of recording audio, all of which are real behavioral constraints beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination/default PBX page size in prose, but those are schema-documented.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core list action and fields, then boundary/version exclusions. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no-required-parameter list tool, the description covers return content (who called whom, when, duration, disposition), filtering bounds, API version, and audio exclusions. The absence of an output schema is partially offset by the explicit field summary; minor gaps such as page-size defaults remain but are already in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter; the description adds only the semantic framing that start_time/end_time are optional bounds atop that. That matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

Purpose is explicit: 'List call detail records (CDR): who called whom, when, duration, disposition.' The verb 'List', the resource CDR, and the scope are all present, and the v1.0 versus v2.0 and no-audio notes further differentiate it from nearby list/report endpoints.

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 context by stating optional time bounds and clarifying that the v1.0 CDR surface is used and recording audio is not included, which tells the agent when not to expect audio. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., list_call_reports) or state a condition for choosing another tool, so usage guidance remains partly implied.

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