ringcentral_list_extensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET) via the API line, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, response format, or pagination behavior beyond the existence of page/per_page parameters. This is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise API reference and a bulleted parameter list. It contains no unnecessary prose. The formatting is easy to scan, though the API line could be considered optional given the tool name.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward list operation, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the API endpoint, and all filter parameters. It lacks explicit auth or prerequisite context, but that is less critical for a read-only list operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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, and it does thoroughly. Every parameter (type, status, extension_number, email, page, per_page) is explained with a phrase and examples for type and status. This goes well beyond the bare schema, providing clear meaning for each argument.

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 immediately states 'List extensions on the account,' using a specific verb and resource. The API endpoint further clarifies the exact operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ringcentral_get_extension (single extension) and ringcentral_list_phone_numbers.

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 through its list of filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ringcentral_get_extension for a single extension. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, making the usage context clear but not fully elaborated.

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