conduyt_get_smart_dialing_order

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 that results are uncapped (unlike the 100-cap sibling), that ordering is meaningful (dial order), and exactly which view types are included vs. excluded. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the candidate set is flagged separately in the response.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition before the routing advice, and no filler. The nested parentheticals ('exactly the set the queue walks; personal views and deal views are never priorities') are dense but each clause adds real selection value.

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?

With no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description must stand in for the return contract, and it does by describing the two result groups (priorities plus candidates). What's missing is any sense of response shape or size — how a candidate is distinguished from a priority — which matters for a supposedly uncapped result.

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; baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, account-wide call rather than hinting at filtering options that don't exist.

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?

Names a precise resource — the Smart Dialing priority list — and defines its exact membership: dial-enabled, account-wide contact Smart Views in dial order, plus candidate views. It also explicitly excludes personal and deal views, so an agent can distinguish this from conduyt_list_smart_views or conduyt_list_deal_views without opening a schema.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects this tool: prefer it over conduyt_list_smart_views (capped at 100) and call it before changing the priority order. The negative scope ('personal views and deal views are never priorities') further narrows usage, though the write-path sibling (set_smart_dialing_order) is only implied rather than named.

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