ringcentral_get_extension

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, required permissions, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation. The API path shows 'GET', which hints at non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicitly articulated. Additional behavioral context is missing.

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 concise and well-structured: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the API path and an Args section. Every line earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to cover return values. The API endpoint is included. However, the lack of explicit usage guidelines and behavioral transparency means it is not fully complete, though it is adequate for a straightforward getter.

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 description explains the `extension_id` parameter beyond the schema, clarifying that '~' is a special value for the currently authenticated extension and is the default. This adds meaningful semantic value that the schema alone (with only title and default) does not provide.

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 'Get a single extension's details' with the specific verb 'get' and resource 'single extension'. It also includes the API endpoint, which further clarifies the exact scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like ringcentral_list_extensions that operate on multiple 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 word 'single' implies this tool is for retrieving one extension at a time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ringcentral_list_extensions. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage guidelines largely implied.

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