list_extensions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must communicate behavioral traits. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no further behavior is disclosed (e.g., whether the list is sorted, whether extensions can be filtered). This is minimal but sufficient for a simple listing operation.

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, four-word sentence that conveys the entire purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does, and no additional context is necessary for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, and the schema already confirms this with 0 properties.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with resource 'extensions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_catalogs or list_tables. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.

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 implies usage for listing loaded extensions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Given the sibling tool names, the usage context is inferred rather than clearly stated.

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