Sofia SIP profile and gateway status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns with these by describing a read-only status query. It adds value by disclosing that it also reports whether trunks are registered upstream, which is a specific behavioral detail beyond a generic status read.

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?

Two sentences provide all essential information without redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a practical usage hint. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, the scope of its output (profiles and gateways with trunk registration), and the typical troubleshooting scenario. The schema documents the parameter, so nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, 'profile', is fully described in the schema ('Optional profile name for a detailed view instead of the summary.'). The description adds no further parameter-level nuance, so the schema carries the full burden, yielding the baseline score.

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: showing the state of every Sofia SIP profile and gateway, including trunk registration. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource (Sofia profiles/gateways) and pairing this with a targeted use case (outbound call failures while the switch is healthy).

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 contextual trigger: 'when outbound calls fail but the switch itself is healthy.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the context strongly implies a diagnostic role separate from overall switch status.

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