list_extensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the resource scope and that status is included. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, default scoping when customer_id is absent, pagination, or any constraints. The verb 'list' weakly implies read-only, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core subject, and there is no filler or repetition. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, and the brevity leaves substantive gaps in usage and parameter meaning.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description names the returned content and status but leaves customer scoping and result shape ambiguous. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, yet it does not explain how customer_id is used or what the returned list looks like. An agent could probably invoke it, but the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 one property, customer_id, with 0% description coverage and no enums, and the description never mentions customer_id or explains how it affects results. The only meaning available is the property title 'Customer Id' and its default null, which is insufficient for an agent to understand scoping semantics. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource as campaign-level extensions/assets and names concrete types (sitelinks, callouts, structured snippets), making the target clear. The verb is implied by the tool name 'list,' and the phrase 'with status' adds a distinct output intent. It is distinguishable from sibling tools because it names extension asset types rather than accounts, performance metrics, or health data.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign_performance, run_gaql, or list_accounts. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mention of when this is the preferred access path. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and brief noun-phrase description.

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