calls_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with archived calls. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 at just 6 words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and could not be more efficient in its current form, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the filtering capabilities, return format, pagination, or how parameters interact. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what the 5 parameters do, their relationships, or filtering capabilities. The description adds almost no value beyond what's inferred from parameter names in the schema.

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 'List all calls with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('calls'), and specifies the scope ('all') with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like calls_get (single call) and calls_search (likely more advanced search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from calls_batch_read or other list tools.

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 like calls_search, calls_batch_read, or other list tools in the sibling set. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what filtering capabilities exist or when to choose this over more specific search tools.

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