list_extensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that without a separate runtime snapshot it returns 'unknown', and that API position order is not presented as proven module execution order. These caveats are valuable and go beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and caveats. Every sentence serves a distinct informative role, with no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage context, prerequisite, and important behavioral caveats. It adequately equips an agent to determine when and how to call the tool.

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 `config` parameter is already well-described (name as returned by `list_configurations`, mandatory when multiple configurations). The tool's description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing extensions that were actually active in a captured 1C session, unapplied extensions, and the order of elements in the platform API response. It references the prerequisite `list_configurations` and differentiates itself by focusing on extension activity within a specific session context.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to call after `list_configurations` when the task depends on extension activity. Gives a clear context and prerequisite, though it doesn't list when-not to use alternatives. No direct sibling for extensions exists, so the contextual direction is adequate.

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