test_agent

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

Reveals key behavioral traits: webcall/chat return LiveKit connection details, telephony places a real call, and parameters revision_id and include_draft cannot be combined. No annotations provided, so description handles transparency well.

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?

Single sentence covers all key aspects without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., list modes), but it is concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Lacks output schema, and description does not fully specify what telephony mode returns (only says 'places a real call'). It mentions return for webcall/chat but omits details for all modes. Slight gap in completeness.

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 has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds extra context like default mode, required condition for to_phone, and mutual exclusivity, going beyond 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 clearly states the tool starts a test call against a branch, specifying modes, branch targets, and the ability to test drafts or revisions. It distinguishes from siblings like make_call (production) and debug_call.

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?

Describes when to use each mode and parameters (e.g., telephony requires to_phone), and highlights mutual exclusivity of revision_id and include_draft. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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