Directorio de extensiones

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

The description adds that the tool returns no passwords, which is useful, and annotations already indicate it is read-only. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or whether all extensions are always returned, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that contain all essential information without any filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (four fields), the purpose, and what is excluded (passwords). It lacks some details like ordering or scope, but is largely complete for its simplicity.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, but it adds no additional semantic value beyond confirming the simple listing nature.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a compact listing of extensions mapping number to name, email, and id, with the purpose of identifying who is who. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbx_list_extensions by specifying a compact format and excluding passwords, but doesn't explicitly differentiate further.

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 implies usage for quick identification ('para resolver quién es quién'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pbx_list_extensions or pbx_get_extension, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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