ringcentral_get_presence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds the API endpoint and clarifies the scope as 'presence/telephony/do-not-disturb status,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. Since it's a GET, the read-only nature is implied, but not stated.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. It includes the API endpoint and Args block, which are useful but add some formatting overhead. No fluff or redundancy, though the API line could be seen as extra for the agent.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it gets and the default extension behavior. It lacks usage context (addressed in usage_guidelines) but is otherwise complete for a straightforward getter. The output schema handles return value 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'extension_id: The extension ID, or "~" for the currently authenticated extension (default).' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and default, explicitly covering the parameter's semantics and special value '~'.

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 tool's function: 'Get an extension's presence/telephony/do-not-disturb status.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('extension's presence') that distinctly separates it from sibling tools like ringcentral_get_account_info or ringcentral_list_extensions, which target different resources.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage through the resource description, but lacks guidance on scenarios like checking a user's availability before a call or comparing with other presence-related tools (though none exist among siblings). This is implied usage at best.

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