signalgrid_system_extensions

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

Description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it explains fail-safe flags (available, reliable), how to interpret edge cases (unknown states), and the meaning of statuses. It also explicitly confirms read-only behavior consistent with annotations, without contradiction.

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 longer but well-structured with clear sections ('Fail-safe', 'Returns'). Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, edge cases, and output format. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful, earning a 4.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return dictionary fields and their semantics, along with failure modes and status categories. This makes it complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and outputs 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, with descriptions for limit, offset, name_contains, and response_format. The description does not add extra parameter semantics; it only explains outputs. The schema descriptions are sufficiently clear, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely states the tool reports installed system extensions (endpoint-security/network) and highlights stranded extensions, a specific resource and condition. It differentiates from siblings like signalgrid_kernel_extensions by focusing on system extensions, and the return structure clarifies it lists them.

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 mentions it is read-only and needs no elevation, providing some operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., signalgrid_kernel_extensions) or state when not to use this tool. Usage timing is implied by the resource type rather than explicitly stated.

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