emu_list_phones

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says it lists endpoints and lists output fields, which is useful, but it does not clarify that results can include unregistered/rejected/unknown statuses—despite the status parameter having those enum values. The wording 'configured and registered' may actively mislead an agent into thinking only registered endpoints are returned.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action (Lists) and the key resource, then compactly lists the output fields. There is no filler, and it is easy to consume at a glance.

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?

Given the simplicity of a list operation, the description captures the main purpose and return fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, key behavioral facts remain unresolved—such as matching all configured devices vs registered-only, default pagination behavior, and the exact response envelope. For a 5-parameter optional tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 five parameters are fully covered in the schema with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no information about the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already provides, so there is no extra lift needed or 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 uses a clear verb ('Lists'), identifies a specific resource ('Cisco IP phone endpoints'), and names concrete output fields (line numbers, MAC addresses, firmware, registration status). It distinguishes itself from single-phone helpers like get_phone_by_ip, but the phrase 'configured and registered' is ambiguous about whether unregistered or rejected phones are included.

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 enumerating phone endpoints but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over emu_get_phone_by_ip or emu_list_inventory, and does not call out any alternative or exclusion. The status and model filters are present in the schema, but the description does not explain typical selection scenarios.

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