conduyt_sms_transports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the required permission ('Requires automations:view'), implies read-only via GET, and adds non-obvious behavioral chains (voiceDrop connected = Twilio connected). It does not state rate limits or pagination, but for a status-read tool this is solid 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, and every field mapping is genuinely useful, but it is delivered as one very dense run-on sentence with nested braces, which harms scanability. No truly wasted content, but the structure is heavy.

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, the description must explain return values and it does extensively per transport, including which fields map to valid send_sms config properties. It is complete enough for a no-param status tool, though the dense single-paragraph form makes full consumption harder.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its detail budget on documenting the return-value field semantics (numbers[], lineId, projectBlueLineId, etc.), which are not captured in the empty input schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+endpoint ('What a workflow Send SMS step can speak through TODAY (GET /api/v1/sms/transports)') and enumerates exactly the transports returned. An agent can distinguish this aggregate status tool from the per-transport siblings like conduyt_whatsapp_status and conduyt_fromk_status without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the when-to-use condition: 'Use it before building or editing a send_sms step so you never configure a transport that is not connected.' It also routes to conduyt_whatsapp_templates for template sourcing. It stops short of naming the per-transport status siblings as alternatives, so it's clear context but not full when-not/alternatives coverage.

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