conduyt_project_blue_lines

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 data is fetched live from the vendor rather than cached, details the response shape including the `orphaned` edge case, and maps 409/422/502 to specific failure conditions (not connected, key revoked, vendor unreachable). It omits vendor latency/rate-limit behavior and whether results are paginated, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentences with zero waste: the core read and return shape come first, then error codes, then the permission requirement. Every clause adds distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly what is missing — return field inventory, the orphaned nuance, error semantics, and the required permission scope. An agent can call this and interpret failures correctly without further documentation.

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 4 applies. The description reinforces this by framing the call as an unconditional inventory read keyed to the account.

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 — reading the LIVE Project Blue line inventory via the account's vendor key — and enumerates the returned fields (lineId, E.164 phoneNumber, name, assignedTo, orphaned). This clearly separates it from siblings like conduyt_project_blue_status or conduyt_project_blue_assign_line without the agent needing to open 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?

The description implies usage ('LIVE ... read from the vendor') and the 409 'not connected' error hints that status should be established first, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over conduyt_project_blue_status or conduyt_project_blue_assign_line. The 'Requires settings:view' prerequisite is the only concrete usage condition given.

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