calls_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all calls' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though 'limit' parameter exists), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether archived calls are included by default, or what format the results will be in. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality upfront. There's no wasted language or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a list operation, though the lack of additional context makes it feel sparse rather than concise.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the filtering parameters, doesn't describe return format or pagination, doesn't mention rate limits or permissions, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without guessing about parameter meanings and expected behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'optional filtering' generically without explaining what parameters are available, what 'after' means (cursor pagination?), what 'associations' filters do, or what 'properties' controls. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names visible in the 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?

The description 'List all calls with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('calls'), and specifies scope ('all') with an additional capability ('optional filtering'). It distinguishes from other call tools like calls_get (single call) and calls_search (likely more advanced search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from calls_batch_read or other list operations. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calls_search, calls_batch_read, or calls_get. With multiple sibling tools available (calls_search, calls_batch_read, calls_get, etc.), the agent receives no explicit or implied direction about when this list tool is appropriate versus other call retrieval methods. The mention of 'optional filtering' hints at some capability but doesn't define boundaries.

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