emu_get_phone_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. The verb 'retrieves' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent. It does not mention potential errors or caching, but it is sufficient for an agent to infer safe usage.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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?

The tool has a simple structure with three parameters, and the description plus schema cover the essential invocation details. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but since the output schema is absent and the purpose is clear, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

All three parameters have descriptive text: 'path' specifies the web path, 'format' indicates the response flavor (with enum in schema), and 'phoneNameOrIp' identifies the device. The descriptions add meaning beyond the type definitions, though they are not exhaustive (e.g., allowed path values are only examples).

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's purpose: retrieving web responses (serviceability, network configuration, or XML execute) from a simulated Cisco IP phone endpoint. It provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other emu_* tools that handle calls, inventory, or CDRs.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a web response from a phone is needed—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using it. The uniqueness of the task makes the usage context clear, but it lacks explicit guidance.

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