Phone Presence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the 90-second agent window, device states (open/asleep, last seen, on stream), unclaimed-note timing, and LEAD claim behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or side-effect absence, but the content is otherwise rich.

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 dense but organized into agent, device, and notes sections, with no obvious filler. It is appropriately sized for a multi-part presence snapshot, though the opening phrase is somewhat cryptic.

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?

For a complex presence tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is included, the relevant time windows, and how notes/claims are represented. Missing explicit read-only and sibling-differentiation details keep it from a 5.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that `minutes` scopes the person's untagged notes. It does not state the default or clarify that the 90-second agent window is independent, but the parameter's meaning is largely covered.

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 establishes a specific resource and scope: a presence snapshot covering agents, the person's devices, unclaimed notes, and recent claims. It is more than a restatement of the name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as phone_status or phone_timeline.

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?

It gives one clear usage cue: read it before deciding whether a note is yours to pass on. Beyond that, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many phone_* presence/status tools.

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