octo_get_extensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the description adds the output fields shown. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention any potential errors, authorization requirements, or pagination behavior. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not richly 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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the output fields. There is zero filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 list tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the resource (team extensions) and the fields shown (name, version, uuid), which is especially valuable given the lack of an output schema. It could have added a note about when to use it, but the low complexity makes this a minor omission.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters, adding no unnecessary detail.

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 operation as 'Get list of team extensions' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like octo_delete_extensions by focusing on listing rather than modifying. It also specifies the output fields (name, version, uuid), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as octo_get_tags, octo_get_proxies, or octo_get_profile. It implies a read-only listing use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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