list_extensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description solely carries the burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (listing) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, performance impact, or that it is safe to call frequently. This is adequate but minimal.

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 of 15 words that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler. Highly efficient.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and distinguishes key outputs (version info, framework detection). It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., list of objects), but the current level is sufficient for agent understanding.

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, so baseline is 4 as per rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it correctly describes what the tool returns without needing to reference parameters.

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 installed PostgreSQL extensions'), the output ('version information and specialized framework detection'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_schemas or list_tables, which focus on different database objects.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when you need to see installed extensions and their versions). Among siblings, no other tool serves this purpose, so context is clear. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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