qobrix_get_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape as '{ data: { id, ... } }', which is a behavioral trait beyond what the schema provides. It also lists the expandable include associations. It does not mention errors, read-only safety, or pagination (though for a single record this is less critical), so it is not a 5 but is above average.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence is the core action, the second provides return structure, and the third lists includes. However, the include list is redundant with the schema's parameter description, so a small amount of the text is wasted. Still, overall it is efficient and readable.

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 simple single-record get tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential return shape ('{ data: { id, ... } }') and the expandable associations. It lacks error behavior or explicit read-only confirmation, but these are less critical for a get operation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the include options that are already fully documented in the schema, adding no additional meaning or syntax details. It does not clarify usage nuances beyond what the schema already states, so it neither improves nor degrades parameter understanding.

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 specific verb+resource construction: "Get a single call record by UUID." It clearly identifies the exact scope (single vs. list) and the identifier required, distinguishing it from sibling list/search tools. The addition "call detail in the Activity Tracking workflow" provides contextual framing without ambiguity.

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 this tool (when you need a single call's details by UUID) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that for multiple calls you'd use qobrix_list_calls, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The context of 'Activity Tracking workflow' gives some indication, but it's not explicit.

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