yeastar_list_inbound_routes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds context about the returned data's meaning (DID/pattern to destination mapping) beyond a bare 'list', which helps an agent understand what the operation provides. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, potential size limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.

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?

A single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List inbound call routes') and uses a parenthetical to enrich meaning without redundancy. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 paginated list tool, the description covers the conceptual content of the results well. The page parameters in the schema indicate pagination, and the parenthetical explains what a route represents. It is missing explicit linkage to get_inbound_route for detail retrieval, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 fully documents both parameters (page and page_size) with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the high-coverage rule.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List inbound call routes') and then clarifies the resource's meaning with a concrete explanation ('which DID/pattern sends calls to which destination - extension, ring group, IVR, queue, etc'). This clearly distinguishes listing from the sibling get_inbound_route, which targets a single route.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the singular get_inbound_route for retrieving a single route, nor does it contrast with list_outbound_routes. The context is implicit from the tool name and description, but no explicit or even implied usage conditions are given.

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