list_extensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by noting the tool works with no tabs open and by specifying the output fields, which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 efficient sentence plus a compact field list. Every element earns its place, with the most important verb and resource front-loaded.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only listing tool with an output schema and strong annotations. The description communicates the purpose, the returned fields, the 'no tabs needed' precondition, and the safety profile is already covered by annotations, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not mention session_id at all. The only parameter is an optional nullable string with a null default, so the schema carries almost no semantic information. The description's listing of output fields does not compensate for the absence of parameter guidance.

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 states a clear verb and resource: listing installed browser extensions, and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, enabled, type, version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like call_extension, set_extension_enabled, or extension_path, which operate on extensions rather than listing 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 phrase 'Works with no tabs open' provides a useful context that this operation does not require an active tab, which helps differentiate it from tab-dependent tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention any alternatives.

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