Phone Signoff

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

Since no annotations are provided, this description carries the full burden. It exceptionally well discloses operational behavior, explaining the system consequences (no alarm triggered, phone_expect ends) which is highly valuable behavioral context.

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 definition is efficient in its delivery of core state changes. While it uses jargon, it packs maximum functional information into two sentences without being overly verbose.

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?

Due to the 0% schema coverage, the description is fundamentally incomplete. It tells us what happens at the system level, but it fails to define the inputs (the parameters) required to trigger this state change, rendering the tool definition highly unusable in isolation.

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 coverage is 0%. The description provides zero semantic meaning for the required 'who' or optional 'why' parameters. It is impossible to tell if 'who' requires a specific ID, name, or role from this text.

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 purpose is clear: it initiates a state where the user stops watching intentionally. It distinguishes itself from generic 'stop' commands by specifying the context of completion ('your work is done, the set is over').

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 provides clear situational context—use it when the set is over and you intentionally stop—but it doesn't explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this over a standard stop or wait function among the large list of siblings.

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