ringcentral_list_internal_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It provides the API endpoint and lists parameters, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond page/per_page, or whether the results are limited to active users. The description is essentially a restatement of the core action and schema, offering minimal additional behavioral context.

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 brief and well-structured, with an API reference line and a clear list of arguments. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return value structure, and the description explains the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance, default pagination values, and any caveats about multi-site or filtering behavior, making it incomplete for an agent without additional context.

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 input schema has no descriptions for its properties (0% coverage), so the description's Args list adds essential meaning by explaining each parameter: type filters by directory entry type, site_id filters by site, page is the page number, and per_page sets results per page. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 explicitly states it lists internal company directory entries (corporate users/extensions), which clearly identifies the tool's function. The term 'internal' distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_external_contacts' tool.

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 discuss when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The name and context imply it is for internal contacts, but no alternative guidance is provided, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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