list_call_control_applications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details such as default sort order, case-insensitive filter, and a minimum filter length. However, it does not disclose response structure or pagination output, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear list of arguments, and a return type. It is concise, front-loaded, and every line adds value without unnecessary prose.

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 lacks an output schema and the description only provides a vague 'Dict[str, Any]' for the return value. It does not describe the shape or fields of the returned list items, which is a significant gap for an agent trying to interpret results. The parameter details are strong, but the response is underspecified.

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 input schema is a generic 'request' object with 0% actual parameter coverage. The description fully compensates by enumerating each parameter, its type, optionality, default value, and filtering behavior, providing substantial meaning 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?

The description opens with 'List call control applications,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_call_control_application and create_call_control_application.

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 clearly implies usage for listing applications with optional filters, sorting, and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_call_control_application, so while context is clear, it lacks explicit exclusions.

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