apmx_get_call_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: shows pre/post parameter values, identifies return values via comparison, and extracts embedded strings. No contradictions or missing critical traits.

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 three sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose, second gives details, third provides usage guidance. 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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately describes return data as detailed records with parameters, values, timestamps, pre/post state, and embedded strings. It covers the main parameters and usage, but could benefit from more precise return format details.

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%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds limited value by clarifying the relationship between call_indices and api_filter, but this is minimal.

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 specific verbs ('Extract detailed...') and resource ('APMX capture'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like apmx_get_calls by focusing on parameter values, return values, and pre/post state. It is not a tautology.

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 explicitly advises when to use call_indices vs. api_filter, providing actionable guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like apmx_get_calls, but the context from sibling names implies differentiation.

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