extension_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about what each mode returns (e.g., effective merged schema, available extension points, recommendations with risks/alternatives), going beyond the annotation. It does not mention any rate limits or specific side-effect behaviors, but for a read-only analyzer this is sufficient.

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 well-organized with a bullet list per mode, each line concise and informative. No repetition or fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the outputs for each mode (e.g., 'effective merged schema', 'available extension points... which are already extended', 'recommends the best extensibility mechanism... with reasoning, risks, alternatives, next steps'). Given the tool's complexity (5 modes, 10 parameters), the description is complete enough for an agent to select the right mode and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter semantics by mapping parameters to modes (e.g., target is explained per mode, and strategy requires goal). It clarifies mode-specific filters like method and handlerType, adding meaning beyond raw schema property names. However, some parameter descriptions already contain bracketed usage hints, so the main description adds modest incremental value.

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 a 'D365FO extensibility analyzer' and enumerates five distinct modes (coc, events, table-merge, points, strategy), each with a specific verb and target resource. This distinguishes the tool from sibling analysis tools like analyze_code or get_object_info by focusing on extensibility analysis.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode, e.g., 'Use before writing a CoC extension to check for conflicts' and 'Use before adding handlers to check for duplicates.' It also clarifies parameter prerequisites (e.g., 'coc/events/table-merge/points need target; strategy needs goal'), giving actionable direction.

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