Get Kalyvox features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state the action ('list') and the general subject, which is minimally adequate. However, it does not disclose the return format, level of detail, or any limitations (e.g., whether it omits detailed specifications).

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, direct sentence with no filler. The key information ('List', 'main capabilities', 'Kalyvox') is front-loaded, and 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, given the sibling tools, some context about how 'features' differs from 'overview' would improve completeness. As is, it is adequate but leaves minor ambiguity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema has no properties and the description correctly focuses on the operation itself.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('main capabilities of the Kalyvox AI phone receptionist'). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_kalyvox_overview, which could overlap in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as get_kalyvox_overview or get_kalyvox_integrations. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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