Listar extensiones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: SIP/web passwords are redacted unless the environment variable CENTRALITA_ALLOW_SECRETS is set. This provides transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence that conveys all essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, then adds details and a behavioral note.

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?

Although no output schema is provided, the description specifies the fields returned (number, name, email, domain, status). It also covers the password redaction behavior. For a simple list tool with no parameters, this is sufficient context for correct use.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No additional parameter info is needed, and the description does not over-specify.

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 'lista' (list) and the resource 'extensiones (usuarios SIP)', and specifies the included fields (número, nombre, email, dominio, estado). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbx_list_calls or pbx_list_queues by focusing on extensions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbx_get_extension for a single extension or pbx_find_extension_by_username for search). Usage is implied as a simple list-all operation, but no exclusions or context are given.

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