ext_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact return payload per plugin and the important caveat that the plugin is inert in already-open windows. It never explicitly says the call is side-effect-free or cheap, but a status/self-check framing makes read-only behavior clear enough.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by returned fields, then troubleshooting triggers. The sentence about newly opened windows is a bit tacked-on but carries real behavioral information, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must explain what comes back — and it lists the returned fields explicitly. Adding whether the output is a single object or a list per plugin would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is a non-issue and the baseline is 4. The description spends its words on the returned fields instead, which is the right use of space.

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?

Names a specific resource (extension self status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: official MCP connection state plus per-plugin project window data (pid, project path, official instance_id, editor interface self-check). No sibling tool in the list reports diagnostic state, so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

Gives precise trigger conditions: call it first when a tool reports a missing window, INCOMPATIBLE_EDITOR, or unavailable official tools. It also warns the plugin only takes effect in project windows opened after installation. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to call it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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