Retrieves extensions accessible to the current user.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of pagination defaults, result caps, or that filtering is optional — so it contributes no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. But the sentence is an exact restatement of the title, so it earns its place only marginally — brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline.

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 six-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description should at least explain filtering and paging behavior or what the returned collection contains. Instead it repeats the title, leaving the agent to infer everything about scope, defaults, and return shape.

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% across all six parameters (id, name, start, total, presetId, workspaceId), so the schema carries parameter semantics entirely. The description adds no filter syntax, default behavior for workspaceId=-1, or pagination details, making the baseline 3 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no indication of pruning/filtering intent, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a workspace context is required). Nothing in the text routes the agent among the many sibling read tools.

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