extension_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets metadata' but does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., extension not found), whether any side effects occur (likely none, but not stated), authentication requirements, or the exact structure of the returned metadata. This is a significant gap for a tool that may be called on arbitrary IDs.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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 simple with only one parameter, and the description gives the essential purpose. However, without an output schema or annotations, the agent lacks information about the response format, error handling, and how to obtain the ID. For a tool of this simplicity, the description is barely adequate but leaves some gaps that could impact correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'id' with type string and no description (schema coverage 0%). The description mentions 'one installed extension' but does not elaborate on what 'id' refers to (e.g., extension ID format, where to find it, or constraints like being non-empty). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('metadata for one installed extension'), and enumerates the key fields ('install type and enabled state'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like extensions_list (which lists all) and extension_set_enabled (which mutates state). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage for a single extension by ID, which distinguishes it from extensions_list, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusion criteria. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain the ID) or alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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