bolna_list_dispositions

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

No annotations provided, but the description's 'list' verb implies read-only, non-destructive behavior. It does not disclose potential pagination or limits, but for a simple list operation, it is adequate.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. 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?

Given a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. No additional context is necessary.

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 one parameter described as 'Optional agent UUID to filter dispositions by'. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond this, so baseline 3.

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 'List all dispositions for your account' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like create_disposition, delete_disposition, etc.

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 usage for reading existing dispositions, but does not explicitly contrast with mutation tools or provide context on when to filter by agent. It is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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