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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping that only approved extensions and the caller's own proposals are returned, but it omits token/auth behavior and pagination or return format details.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is concise, though it trades away detail about the token parameter and usage context.

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 tool is simple and read-only, and no output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, the optional token parameter remains unexplained and there is no guidance on scope such as global versus space-specific listing, leaving it only partially 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?

The single optional 'token' parameter is undocumented in both the schema (0% description coverage) and the description. The description does not clarify whether it is an authentication token, pagination cursor, or another kind of token, so it adds no semantic meaning.

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 ('List') and resources ('approved extensions' and 'your own proposals'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as extensions_propose or extensions_withdraw, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from a proposal-creation 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus extensions_propose, extensions_withdraw, or extensions_report_gap, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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