bolna_get_sip_trunk

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get full details'), which is appropriate, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or if any dependencies exist. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's action, scope, and content of the response.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns ('full details' including specific components). It could be more explicit about the absence of pagination or filtering, but for a single-trunk retrieval, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with trunk_id described as 'The SIP trunk ID to retrieve'. The description adds context about the output (gateways, IP IDs, phone numbers) but does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a single SIP trunk, specifying components like gateways, IP identifiers, and phone numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bolna_list_sip_trunks (which lists trunks) and create/update/delete operations.

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 implies use for fetching a specific trunk's details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., using bolna_list_sip_trunks first to get trunk IDs). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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