yeastar_get_extension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates the read-only nature through 'Get' and reveals the returned detail categories plus the ID prerequisite. However, it does not address behavior on invalid IDs, authorization requirements, or response format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the prerequisite and detail scope. Every word earns its place; no 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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and the required prerequisite, making it nearly complete. It could be more explicit about response shape or error behavior, but this is minor for a simple read-only tool.

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 already documents the id parameter at 100% coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds minor value by naming the exact source tool (yeastar_list_extensions) and clarifying the parameter is an extension ID, but it provides no additional format or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for a single extension', and enumerates the detail categories (call forwarding, voicemail, permissions, device bindings). This clearly distinguishes it from yeastar_list_extensions (single vs list) and from other sibling get_* tools for 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?

Provides clear usage context by saying the tool 'Requires an extension ID from yeastar_list_extensions', which tells the agent the prerequisite call order. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but 'full detail' implies the contrast with the list tool.

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