Определение расширения

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations, 'Секреты скрыты' (secrets are hidden), which warns the agent that returned data is partially redacted — useful but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the resource content leads and the secrets caveat follows. Efficient, though dropping the sentence to a single a clarifying clause on the verb would be tighter.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, listing the returned sections (settings, operations, events) is adequate. However, usage routing against the many extensions_* siblings is missing, leaving a real gap for selection.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'case' and 'extension' are fully documented in-schema, including the fallback behavior of 'case' and the 'extensions_list' source of the UUID. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource and its content — 'Настройки, операции и события расширения с идентификаторами' (settings, operations and events of the extension) — but no explicit verb signals retrieval. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like extensions_list, extensions_nodes, or extensions_templates, so an agent cannot route on the description alone.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only indirect signal is the 'extension' parameter note referencing 'extensions_list' in the schema, which the description itself does not surface.

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