get_file_extensions

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 the purpose and does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The agent cannot infer how the tool behaves beyond the basic function.

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 sentence that concisely conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more efficient by removing the colon and second clause, but it remains clear and to the point.

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 the tool has 3 simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any indication of the output format or structure, and no annotations provide further context. For a data retrieval tool, this is a gap that limits completeness.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters (users, endDate, startDate) including formats and defaults. The overall description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves top file extensions edited with AI, specifying the metrics (suggestions, accepts, rejects). The tool is distinct from its siblings, which cover other analytics like agent edits, billing, usage, etc. The verb 'get' and resource 'file extensions' are 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, contextual constraints, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify that this only shows top extensions, not a full list, or that it might be limited to a certain scope.

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