ipt_list_extensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or how it handles errors. It does not reveal any side effects or limitations. For a listing tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning high marks for efficiency, though it could have added more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple resource listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks important context such as authentication, response format, or error handling. The absence of annotations places the burden on the description, which it fails to meet. More detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly in a workflow.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema covers 100% of the parameter (shortname) and provides a clear description and pattern. Therefore, the description adds no additional value, but baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states it lists extension row types available for mapping on a resource, which is specific enough to indicate what it does. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like ipt_list_managed_resources or ipt_list_instances. It mentions 'mapping' which hints at a connection to mapping tools, but no explicit contrast.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or whether it is a read-only operation. It is merely a statement of what it returns, leaving the agent to infer when it should be called.

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