Get Vapi Call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is retrieved (transcript, recording URL, etc.), which adds some context beyond the basic 'get' action. However, it lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent/safe. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get full details of a call') and follows with specific data fields. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output, with no wasted text or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It explains what data is returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it misses behavioral details like error cases or security requirements. For a basic read tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'callId' documented as 'The ID of the call to retrieve'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a call'), and lists key data fields (transcript, recording URL, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vapi_list_calls' by focusing on retrieving details for a single call rather than listing multiple calls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'vapi_get_assistant' beyond the resource type.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid call ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or listing calls), or comparisons to siblings like 'vapi_list_calls' for bulk retrieval. Usage is implied by the action 'Get', but no explicit context is given.

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