vscode_audit_extension_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly says the tool audits and checks for specific standards and dependencies, implying a read-only validation action. It does not explicitly state side-effect status or result format, but these are low-risk for an audit tool and the listed checks cover the main 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: first states the core purpose and standards, second enumerates the concrete checks, third gives the usage point. The most important action is 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?

The definition is complete enough for invoking a single-parameter audit tool: the schema defines the input, the description defines the checks and timing. The only absent piece is a description of the return format, which is not critical for correct invocation given the low complexity.

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% and the single parameter manifest_json is well documented as a raw JSON string with an example. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema handles it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Audits), a specific resource (VS Code extension package.json manifests), and lists concrete checks (engines, activationEvents, publisher IDs, category validity, unsafe dependencies). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like vscode_generate_mcp_config or vscode_inspect_live_gateways.

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?

It gives an explicit use context: Use before packaging .vsix extension binaries. It does not name exclusions or alternative audit tools, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so this guidance is sufficient.

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