List active FreeSWITCH channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by clarifying that this is a live snapshot of all call legs, sourced from 'show channels', which reinforces the read-only, real-time nature. However, it does not disclose nuances like potential overhead of listing all channels, ordering, or behavior when there are no channels. This is adequate but not rich beyond annotations.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the tool's output, the second gives its use case. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses precise, focused wording with no fluff or repetition. This is a model of conciseness.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned (call legs), the source command ('show channels'), and when to use it (live calls). It does not detail the exact return format or pagination, but these are likely predictable from the underlying command. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to invoke it 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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage for the single optional 'filter' parameter, explaining it as a case-insensitive substring match. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description's scope is on the tool's overall purpose rather than parameter syntax.

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 function: listing every call leg currently up on the FreeSWITCH switch, using the 'show channels' command. It explicitly frames this as the tool for 'what calls are live right now' on FreeSWITCH, distinguishing it from siblings like asterisk_channels. The verb 'list' is implicit in the title, and the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'This is the tool for what calls are live right now on FreeSWITCH.' It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, but the emphasis on FreeSWITCH and the live-call scenario implies a distinction from Asterisk-based siblings. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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