sprut_list_extensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, which is the key behavioral signal, but there is no mention of permissions, whether status values are live or cached, or any rate/scope constraints.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with examples and the status qualifier appended. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level. It is nearly complete; only the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling list/get tools is a minor gap.

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 are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits parameter behavior.

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 (List) and a distinct resource (installed protocols/extensions) with concrete examples (Zigbee, BLE, HomeKit, MQTT) and their status. This clearly separates it from sibling resources like devices, rooms, catalog, and scenarios, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 says what is listed but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to any sibling such as sprut_list_devices or sprut_get_hub_info for related queries. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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