Show dialplan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the optional narrowing to a single extension and the tracing use case, but does not describe return format or potential size of output. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core function, the second adds a practical use case. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool (2 params, 1 required), full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It lacks explicit output format details, but for a 'dump' action this is not critical. The tool is well-covered overall.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'context' and 'extension'. The description paraphrases the schema ('for a context, or for one extension') but adds no new semantic details about parameter values or formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 ('dump') and clearly identifies the resource ('dialplan') and its scoping ('for a context, or for one extension within a context'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like asterisk_status or asterisk_channels, and adds a practical use case ('tracing where a call would go').

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('Useful for tracing where a call would go before placing it'), which implies a diagnostic scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly about different resources, making the appropriate use case reasonably clear.

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