List @lichtblick/suite API symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds scope (the complete export surface, not a filtered subset) but says nothing about whether entries carry signatures, whether results are paginated, or how large the payload is — a real usability question for an 'every symbol' list.

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 sentence with the verb and the full resource scope front-loaded, and the package-to-product expansion appended without waste. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly: what universe of symbols is returned. It falls slightly short only in not clarifying the shape of the returned list or its relationship to extension_api_get.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Nothing described implies hidden inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (every type, interface and constant exported by @lichtblick/suite), plus expands the package name into the human-readable 'Lichtblick extension API'. It never names the sibling extension_api_get, so the list-vs-detail distinction is only implied by 'every' versus a singular get.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to extension_api_get for retrieving a single symbol's details. The agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point before drilling into extension_api_get.

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