lc_preview_extension_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'preview', implying a read-only or dry-run operation, but doesn't confirm safety, side effects, or required permissions. Lack of detail.

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 extremely short (1 sentence), but it sacrifices informativeness. Conciseness is positive only if the message is clear; here it's under-specified.

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?

Given no output schema, high parameter count (6), and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the preview's purpose, behavior, or return value, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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%, but the description adds no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (oid, data, action, impersonate, extension_name, token_ttl_seconds). The agent cannot infer parameter roles or constraints from the description alone.

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 'Preview a generic extension request' is a tautology of the tool name, adding no specific detail about what 'preview' entails or what an 'extension request' is. It doesn't differentiate from other lc_preview_* tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling lc_preview_* tools, the description should specify the context, but it provides none.

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