calls_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what happens when filters are applied versus omitted, whether results are paginated, what the default sort order is, or what permissions are required. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 concise at just 6 words, which is efficient for a basic list operation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema documentation, many sibling tools), this brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than representing optimal 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?

Given the context of 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is inadequate. A list operation with filtering capabilities needs more explanation about what data is returned, how filtering works, pagination behavior, and differentiation from search operations. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description provides minimal help. It mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at the existence of parameters but doesn't explain what any parameter does, what 'limit' controls, what 'after' means, what 'properties' refers to, what 'associations' includes, or what 'archived' toggles. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'List all calls with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('calls'), which establishes the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'call' in this context or differentiate meaningfully from sibling tools like calls_search or calls_get. The phrase 'optional filtering' is vague about what filtering options exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like calls_search, calls_get, and calls_batch_read, the agent receives no indication of when this list operation is appropriate versus when to use search, get single records, or batch operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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