show_voip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read-only' gives a minimal safety signal, but the description does not reveal what data is returned, the output format, or any side effects. For a status tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is efficient. However, the brevity borders on under-specification — it conveys the core purpose but omits crucial context about return data and scope, so it doesn't fully earn its place by answering what an agent needs to know.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must make this tool fully usable. It fails to state what fields or metrics the VoIP status returns, and given the large family of similar show_* tools, this ambiguity makes the definition incomplete for correct selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema or description to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics are needed and nothing is missing.

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 states a clear resource (VoIP) and an implied verb (status/read), which distinguishes it from the many other show_* siblings by subject. However, it does not specify what kind of status is returned (line status, registration status, codec info, etc.), leaving the agent to guess the tool's exact scope. It's above a tautology because it adds the 'status' and 'read-only' frame, but it's thinner than it could be.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use show_voip versus the 30+ other show_* siblings (show_status, show_lan, show_dns, etc.). There are no conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives. The agent is left to infer the use case purely from the tool name.

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