debug_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return contents and the 'at time of call' snapshot behavior, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return-value list is dense but clear.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return categories and provides an example ID. Minor omissions like explicit error behavior or guidance for obtaining a callId are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the schema already contains the same example CALL-1234567890-abc123. The description repeats that example without adding new parameter semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Deep-dive into a single call for debugging') and resource ('a single call'). Explicitly enumerates the returned data (transcript, errors, timing, cost, analytics, config), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_call_logs or get_usage_stats.

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 implies usage for in-depth investigation of a single call, but does not explicitly say when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. It does not mention that get_call_logs might be needed first to obtain a callId.

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