suggest_extensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that recommendations are free extensions, installed ones are excluded, and the return structure includes suggestions and installed lists. No side effects are indicated, which is acceptable for a suggestion tool.

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 structured as a docstring with sections for purpose, args, and returns. It is slightly verbose but clear and well-organized, earning a high trust score on conciseness.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. No gaps remain.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'task_description' parameter's behavior, especially when empty. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Suggest helpful Blender extensions for a planned task.' It specifies the verb 'suggest' and the resource 'extensions,' and it is distinct from sibling tools which focus on modeling, animation, and other Blender operations.

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 explains that the tool analyzes a task description to recommend extensions, and that an empty task_description returns all uninstalled extensions. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context makes usage clear.

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