ringcentral_list_user_call_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) which implies a read-only operation and lists parameters, but it does not mention pagination behavior, date range defaults, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. 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 well-structured with a one-line summary followed by a compact argument list. Every line serves a purpose, providing the API endpoint and parameter definitions without unnecessary verbosity. It is easy to scan and understand.

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 has 7 parameters and an output schema that covers return values, the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward list operation. However, it lacks details about result ordering, timezone handling, or pagination practicalities, which would round out completeness for a production agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter with clear meaning and even notes defaults ('~' for extension_id, max 1000 for per_page). It adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the purpose of each field and acceptable values for direction and view.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'call log records for a specific extension/user', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'ringcentral_list_company_call_log' which would target the entire company. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a specific extension/user' provides clear context that this is for individual user call logs, implying when to use it over the company-level tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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