list_sip_trunks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only listing operation and optional filtering, which is useful, but it omits details such as return format, pagination, filter matching behavior, and authentication scope.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the optional filters are stated compactly and clearly.

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?

This is a simple list tool with fully documented parameters, so the missing output schema is not a major issue. However, with no annotations, the description is thin on behavioral context such as what is returned when no filters are supplied, result limits, or how to use it relative to other list tools.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description ('Filter by trunk UUID', 'Filter by SIP username'). The description only restates the parameter names and optionality already encoded in the schema, adding no new semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('SIP trunks'), and names the available filters. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create/update/delete_sip_trunk tools and from other list tools targeting different resources.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'List' implies retrieval, but the description does not state when this listing tool is preferred, how filters should be combined, or what happens when no filters are provided.

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