call_phone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'SIM card 1 only' and implies a mutation (making a call), but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., call duration, network usage), error conditions, or response format beyond a generic success/error message. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, parameter details, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core function. Minor improvements could include bolding or bullet points for structure, but it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (returns str), the description covers basics but is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., call handling, errors), parameter formatting, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values meaningfully. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should do more to guide usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'number' with type and purpose, adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., E.164, country code), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Make') and resource ('a phone call'), specifying it uses 'SIM card 1 only'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_sms' or 'end_call' by focusing on initiating calls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives like 'call_phone_sim2' if they existed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device state, permissions), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'send_sms' for communication methods. The SIM card limitation is noted but not framed as a usage constraint relative to other tools.

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