lc_list_extension_subscriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (despite a 'limit' parameter), required permissions, rate limits, or whether results are ordered. The description is too minimal to be transparent.

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?

A single 6-word sentence is concise. However, it could be made slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Front-loading is adequate.

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 is a simple list operation with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for a basic understanding. However, it could include details about pagination, field descriptions, or relationship to extensions for better completeness.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds context by implying 'oid' is the org ID, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the format of 'oid'. Baseline with 0% coverage is higher (4), but minimal addition keeps it at 3.

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 the action ('List extension subscriptions') and the scope ('for an org'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'lc_list_available_extensions' (list available extensions, not subscriptions).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_available_extensions, list_groups). No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are given.

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