Расширения дела

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: saved secrets are returned empty (redacted) by the server, which tells the agent what the returned data will and won't contain. It stops short of describing pagination or result size.

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 filler: the first states what is returned, the second front-loads the security-relevant caveat about secrets. Nothing is wasted and the important constraint is not buried.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient; with no output schema it partially compensates by stating what is returned (full definitions, secrets blanked). It could still note ordering, count, or pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single 'case' parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or id, with default/last-opened fallback), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when coverage is high.

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 (external connections/extensions) and implies retrieval of their full definitions, and the title 'Расширения дела' scopes it to a case. However, it never uses an explicit listing verb and does not distinguish itself from close siblings like extensions_get, extensions_nodes, or extensions_templates, so the agent must infer the 'list all extensions for a case' semantics.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus extensions_get, extensions_nodes, extensions_templates, or extensions_delete. The only hinted condition is the case parameter's default (schema-level), not the description. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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