conduyt_list_call_flow_numbers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that each entry reports its current answering target and webhook wiring status, implying a read-only inventory. It does not mention permissions, pagination, whether non-Twilio numbers are excluded, or what happens for unconnected workspaces — relevant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 what is returned before the usage hint, and nothing is wasted. The parenthetical enumerating claimedBy values is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what to look for.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return shape — it does, down to the claimedBy categories and the wiring flag. Only pagination/volume expectations and any permission requirements are missing, which are minor for a zero-parameter read.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the result set is scoped to the caller's workspace with no filtering options, which is the only semantic an agent needs 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?

The description names the exact resource (Twilio voice numbers owned by the workspace) and enumerates the per-number metadata returned (claimedBy values, webhook wiring state), which separates it from siblings like conduyt_list_ring_groups or conduyt_get_call_flow_wiring. The listing verb is only implied by the name rather than stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Use it to pick a free number for a flow' gives one concrete scenario, so usage is more than implied. But it names no alternative (e.g. conduyt_list_ring_groups for existing groups, conduyt_get_call_flow_wiring for wiring detail) and states no when-not condition.

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