List SIP registrations

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 and external changeability are known. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (contact URI, user agent, expiry) and the concept of Sofia profile, going beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 essential: the first states what the tool does, the second provides practical use cases. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is simple with one optional parameter, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description specifies output fields and typical use cases. Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the relevant return data, making it contextually complete for its complexity.

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% coverage for the single 'profile' parameter, including a description of what it is and its default value. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 lists registered SIP users on a Sofia profile with specific fields (contact URI, user agent, expiry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freeswitch_channels and freeswitch_status by focusing specifically on registrations. The title 'List SIP registrations' is reinforced by the descriptive noun phrase.

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 explicitly gives concrete use cases: 'is this extension registered' or 'which devices dropped off'. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention alternative tools or exclusion scenarios. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause.

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