Шаблоны расширений

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as whether results are cached, how the optional case parameter affects returned templates, pagination, or output format.

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 short sentence with no redundant words and is fully front-loaded. For a simple read-only template tool with one optional parameter, this is appropriately sized and wastes no space.

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 low complexity, one optional schema-documented parameter, and no output schema, the description is only minimally adequate. It states what the templates are but does not explain the tool's return shape or how it relates to the other extensions_* tools, leaving an agent to infer too much from the name and annotations.

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 one optional parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the 'case' parameter's default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when schema 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 content ('ready-made connection definitions') but uses no verb to say what the tool actually does, such as list, retrieve, or return templates. It is clearer than a pure tautology because it clarifies that the templates are connection definitions for extension creation, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like extensions_get or extensions_list.

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 phrase 'for creating an extension' gives only an implied context, not an explicit when-to-use rule. There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus extensions_list, extensions_get, extensions_nodes, or extensions_save, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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