datto_edr_extensions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by mapping the tool to the concrete HTTP endpoint and clarifying the domain meaning of 'extensions' (collection extensions and response actions) plus the downstream dependency on run_response. It doesn't touch on result volume or paging behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the identity and endpoint come first, then the downstream consumer. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the resource is, the endpoint, and why an agent would call it. The only meaningful omission is that results are paginated (the skip/limit/nextSkip contract lives solely in the schema), which an agent might miss when assembling a multi-page workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the nested LoopBack 'where' filter and the pagination fields is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the 'Host Isolation' example that also appears in the name field, 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?

Specific verb plus resource ('List Datto EDR extensions'), backed by the underlying endpoint (GET /api/extensions) and concrete examples of what an extension is ('Host Isolation', 'Host Isolation Restore'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling datto_edr_extensions_get by being the collection lister.

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 closing sentence establishes the workflow: extension ids/names 'feed datto_edr_run_response', which tells an agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement or naming extensions_get as the single-record alternative, so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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