emu_get_cdr_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'recent' and 'buffer' but doesn't disclose behavior like whether records are cleared after retrieval, pagination limits, or the exact structure of the JSON/CSV output. The description is thin on behavioral details beyond the basic retrieval action.

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 and mentions the format options. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more explicit about the buffer context.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the return format details, pagination, or how 'recent' is defined. Given the sibling tools like emu_export_cdr_csv, more context on when to use this vs. export would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, callId, format). The description adds the 'recent' and 'buffer' context but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves CDR records from the emulator buffer and specifies two output formats (JSON or CSV). It distinguishes from siblings like emu_list_cdr_records and emu_export_cdr_csv by mentioning the buffer and format options, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 retrieving recent CDR records but doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like emu_list_cdr_records or emu_export_cdr_csv. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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