conduyt_get_agent_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the fixed dialer bases (available = ringable for inbound and Smart Dialing, break = signed in but not ringable, offline = signed out), the tenant label, and the hidden-from-softphone flag. It also states the immutability constraint that Available and Offline can never be hidden and notes downstream propagation into reports, heartbeats, and status logs via statusCode — real behavioral context, not a restatement of the name.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read statement, then supporting semantics; nearly every clause adds usable detail about bases, labels, or propagation. The unexplained "(2026-09-15)" date and the trailing multi-topic final sentence add slight density but no real bloat.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned fields (basis, tenant label, hidden flag) and the consumers of the status code, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around ordering/return shape, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter discussion is needed or expected here.

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 specific verb and resource ("Read the account's curated dialer agent statuses") and enumerates the fixed set it returns, so an agent knows exactly what domain object this covers. It also names conduyt_update_agent_statuses as the mutation counterpart, cleanly separating the read from the write sibling.

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?

Clearly routes modification intent to conduyt_update_agent_statuses ("Admins rename or hide with..."), giving the agent an explicit alternative. It stops short of stating when-not to call this one or whether any prerequisite role is needed to read, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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