asterisk_cli

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false for the whole tool, yet the description explicitly says reloads can be issued through it when confirm=true. Reloading Asterisk configuration is a state-changing operation, so an agent trusting the annotation would believe this tool cannot mutate anything. The description is the more accurate of the two, but the result is a definition that contradicts its own structured safety signal.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the read-only-vs-reload split is front-loaded so an agent can classify its command immediately. The awkward line breaks and mid-sentence parenthetical slightly hurt scannability but cost no real meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the key gating facts (confirm for reloads, profile must be enabled, Asterisk-only) are all present. What's missing is any statement of what confirm actually protects against or what happens on an unauthorized reload attempt.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and mostly does: it shows the shape of 'command' via concrete examples and explains that 'confirm' is the gate for reloads rather than a general flag. The gap is whether 'command' takes bare syntax or an 'asterisk -rx' prefix, and no default/behavior for confirm on read-only commands.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: it runs an Asterisk CLI command, with examples ('pjsip show...', 'core show channels...') that pin down the domain. It is clearly distinguished from generic siblings like run_command or service_reload by the Asterisk-specific scope, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Gives real usage conditions: read-only commands run directly, reloads require confirm=true and only when the owner enabled the Asterisk profile, and the tool only works on servers with Asterisk. That is genuine when/when-not guidance, but it never routes to the obvious alternatives (service_reload, run_command) for non-Asterisk or non-CLI cases.

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