manage-extensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names destructive actions like uninstall and disable, but does not state permissions required, reversibility, side effects, or whether operations affect shared state. Only the action names hint at behavior.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though the action list is incomplete because it omits 'validate'.

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 schema is fully documented, which carries most of the parameter burden. However, for a multi-action tool with no annotations, the description does not explain destructive implications, permissions, or scope behavior, and it omits one valid action.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including enums and conditional rules. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 gives a clear verb ('Manage') and resource ('Gemini CLI extensions') and enumerates most supported operations. However, it omits 'validate', which is present in the action enum, so the scope is not fully aligned with the schema.

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 lists possible actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the omission is less harmful, but the definition still provides no usage context.

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