list_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'a summary list with metadata, duration, cost, and disconnection reasons,' which helps understand the output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides filter examples and return contents, and ends with a clear alternative. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential context: types of filters, what the return summary includes, and an alternative for detailed info. It could mention pagination behavior (limit/page) but the schema already covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds value by listing categories of filters (status, type, date range, etc.) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search and list calls across your organization.' It specifies the verb (search and list) and the resource (calls), and distinguishes from sibling tool debug_call by noting the latter is for detailed info.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (to browse calls with filters) and explicitly mentions an alternative: 'For detailed info about a specific call... use debug_call instead.' It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements but the alternative context is sufficient.

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