bolna_list_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and optional filtering, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or what happens with no results. Minimal but adequate for a list operation.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core functionality without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with key information.

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 lack of output schema, the description could mention what the return value contains (e.g., list of violation objects), but it does not. However, the tool is simple and pagination is indicated, so it is moderately 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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reiterates the status filter but does not provide additional context for page_size and page_number. 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 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a paginated list of call violations'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying the resource type (violations) and includes the optional status filter.

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 states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. Since it's a simple list operation, the lack of guidance is moderate but acceptable.

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