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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — it parses statically without performing geometry rendering, i.e. it is a cheap analysis pass — but says nothing about failure modes for invalid .kerf source or the shape of what comes back.

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, the extraction target is front-loaded, and the non-rendering caveat follows immediately. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say something about what the extracted settings/ranges look like, and it only names them in the abstract. Combined with the unresolved `source` semantics and no error behavior, a read-only one-param tool is left with a couple of real gaps.

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?

There is a single parameter, `source`, with 0% schema description coverage (only type and maxLength 64000). The description mentions ".kerf source" but never clarifies whether `source` is the raw .kerf code text or a file path/reference — the one ambiguity an agent must resolve to call this correctly.

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?

"Extract editable settings and customizer ranges from .kerf source" is a specific verb+resource with a stated downstream purpose (build a generator UI). "Parses without rendering geometry" implicitly carves it out from kerfscript_render, though the other siblings (docs, examples) are not addressed.

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 "to build a generator UI" implies the use case, and "without rendering geometry" hints at when to prefer this over kerfscript_render. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.

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