add_extras

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the key outcome—nothing is added, only a report. This is sufficient to prevent an agent from expecting a successful state change, though it does not detail response format or potential errors.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The key fact (unsupported) is front-loaded, and the behavioral outcome follows immediately. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter no-op tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior. It tells the agent the tool is a stub and its expected result. It could mention what the 'report' looks like, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by indicating the extras parameter is not honored—nothing will be added regardless of its value. However, it does not elaborate on input validation or the meaning of each enum value, which the schema already enumerates.

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 states what the tool does: it reports that nothing was added because extras are not supported. This is not a tautology and gives a concrete behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting the unsupported nature.

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 it should not be relied upon for adding extras ('Extras are not supported by this adapter'), which is a form of usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when this tool should be called, leaving some ambiguity.

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