apmx_get_call_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: shows pre/post parameter values, identifies return values, and extracts embedded strings. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (e.g., analyzing a capture file) or discuss performance implications.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second provides parameter usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's output (parameter values, return values, timestamps) and parameter usage. However, it could mention error handling or limitations (e.g., file path validity) to be fully 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use call_indices and api_filter, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 extracts detailed API call records with parameter values, return values, and timestamps. It uses a specific verb (Extract) and resource (detailed API call records), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apmx_get_calls (which lists calls) and apmx_search_params (which searches parameters).

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 usage guidance: 'Use call_indices for specific records or api_filter to search.' This helps the agent decide which parameters to use. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over siblings like apmx_get_calls for listing vs. details.

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