emu_get_contracts_axl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Inspect', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm that, nor mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function without extraneous words or repetition of the tool name. It gives the primary purpose immediately and does not bury the lede.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the operation but omits critical details: what 'AXL operation coverage' means, what the tool returns (list, counts, status), any side effects, or how to interpret results. It also does not clarify when to choose this over sibling tools like emu_get_contracts_catalog or emu_get_contracts_openapi_json. The description is too sparse for an agent to use confidently without additional 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?

The schema covers the only parameter 'version' with an enum and a description ('Supported CUCM AXL version'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'one CUCM version' aligns with the schema, but no extra information is provided.

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 operation: 'Inspect AXL operation coverage for one CUCM version.' It specifies a distinct resource (AXL operation coverage) and scopes it to a single CUCM version, which differentiates it from siblings like emu_get_contracts_catalog or emu_get_contracts_openapi_json. The main gap is that it doesn't explicitly say what 'coverage' means, but the purpose is still clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emu_get_contracts_catalog or emu_get_contracts_openapi_yaml. It states what it does but provides no context for selection criteria, such as 'use this to check supported AXL operations per version' versus other contract tools.

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