extension_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain that this runs .inx scripts properly and supports list/describe/run operations, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of running extensions, such as file mutation or non-deterministic 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?

Two dense sentences deliver purpose, example scope, operation values, and a crucial warning—all without waste. The most important constraint (headless extension execution) 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 description is adequate for a 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what list/describe/run return. Since the tool can execute arbitrary bundled scripts, a bit more context about side effects or output behavior would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful value by specifying the valid operation values (list | describe | run), which the schema only vaguely references as 'See the tool summary for valid values.'

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 action (run), a specific resource (157 bundled Inkscape extensions), and a headless execution context. It also differentiates itself from Inkscape actions, which is especially relevant given the sibling tool action_run.

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 gives clear context: use this for extensions, not for regular Inkscape actions, because calling them as actions silently does nothing. It could name alternatives explicitly, but the warning provides enough directional guidance to steer correct selection.

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