apmx_calls_around

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns detailed call records for a range, implying it is a read operation. However, it does not mention performance implications, whether it modifies state, or what 'detailed' means. Basic transparency but missing depth.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second gives use case. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should fully explain return values. It only says 'returns detailed call records,' which is vague. Additionally, the process_index parameter is not mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on multi-process scenarios. Incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics; it simply restates the range concept already captured in the schema. No additional meaning 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 gets a context window of API calls around a specific index, which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like apmx_get_calls (which likely returns all calls) and apmx_get_call_details (single call details) by focusing on a range.

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 a clear use case: 'useful for understanding what happened immediately before and after a suspicious call.' While it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide when 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.