List Vapi Assistants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('IDs, names, and config'), which adds some value, but fails to address critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by the 'limit' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and return format. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with filtering parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and relationships with sibling tools, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('List all voice assistants') and resource ('in your Vapi account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vapi_list_calls' or 'vapi_list_squads' beyond mentioning the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 when to use it over 'vapi_get_assistant' for retrieving a single assistant or how it relates to other list tools like 'vapi_list_calls', leaving the agent without usage context.

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