Phone Now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: default read-from-engine behavior, clearing semantics, mark behavior, and the now-label expiration rule tied to playing clips or now_of. It does not explicitly state permissions or side effects outside the page display, but it is substantially more transparent than a bare setter.

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 front-loads the main purpose and contains useful details, but it is dense and tangled, with long run-on clauses and mixed field explanations. For eleven parameters the length is somewhat justified, yet better structure would improve scanability without losing 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?

Given the eleven parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough behavioral and parameter context for an agent to call this correctly in most cases. The unexplained sender parameter and indirect explanation of now/next keep it from being fully complete.

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 must explain eleven parameters, and it does add meaning for most of them: mood values, now_mark/next_mark values and timing, length and sections, into, and now_of tie behavior. The main gap is that 'sender' is never explained and 'now'/'next' are described more indirectly than by explicit parameter name.

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 identifies the resource as the phone page's now-playing/next-up display and recording-status explanation, with field-level controls such as mood, marks, length, sections, and now_of. It is more specific than the tool name alone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby phone_* 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?

Usage is implied through statements like 'default: read from the engine', '' clears a field, and 'Set it on every chapter change', which help an agent understand how to use certain fields. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call phone_now versus alternatives such as phone_status, phone_listen, or phone_claim.

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