get_vscode_extensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention important traits such as API usage, rate limits, caching behavior (despite a use_cache parameter), or the structure of returned data. The description is too brief to adequately inform an agent about side effects or constraints.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the tool's purpose and providing a brief expansion on the types of extensions available. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the high-level purpose. It omits details about return format, pagination, error handling, and any limitations. Given the complexity of the parameters (e.g., category filtering) and the number of sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter already has a clear definition. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond summarizing the sorted and filter options. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving VS Code extensions from the Marketplace, with a focus on trending/popular ones. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target other platforms (e.g., get_chrome_extensions, get_npm_packages). However, the emphasis on 'trending' slightly conflicts with the default sort being 'installs', which could mislead an agent expecting purely trending results.

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 implies usage for discovering VS Code extensions, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar get_* tools for other platforms. With many sibling tools, an agent would benefit from direct comparisons or usage scenarios, which are absent.

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