yeastar_list_extensions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating exactly what data is returned and explicitly calling out that the password field is never exposed. It does not explicitly discuss pagination behavior or side effects, but the operation is clearly a read-only list.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first sentence states scope and output, the second routes to the alternative tool, and the third clarifies a critical exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates returned fields, identifies the sibling for deeper detail, and discloses a data-availability constraint. The optional pagination parameters are covered by the schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and the sort_by caveat. The description does not add parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List extensions') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It clearly differentiates from yeastar_get_extension by characterizing this as 'basic info' versus full per-extension detail, so an agent can distinguish between them without opening schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool and when to choose the alternative: 'For full per-extension detail ... use yeastar_get_extension.' It also states a hard limitation (SIP/portal password is never exposed), which prevents incorrect expectations.

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