websex_extract_indicators

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the extracted indicator set, which is real behavior beyond the schema, but says nothing about side effects, deduplication, ordering, or whether anything is written to disk. The existence of an output schema covers the return shape, keeping this at a middling score.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Every word contributes to defining scope.

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 one-parameter, read-only-style extraction utility with an output schema already documenting results, the description covers the core need: what gets extracted and from what. Only minor gaps remain, such as deduplication or handling of large inputs.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. 'From supplied text' clarifies that the input string is the source corpus to be scanned, which is meaningful, but it says nothing about size limits, encoding expectations, or whether multi-line input is supported.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and enumerates the exact resource types (URLs, IPv4, CVEs, hashes). This is far more precise than a generic 'extract' tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings that also extract artifacts from content, most notably websex_bulk_extractor, websex_grep, and websex_strings.

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 'from supplied text' implies the usage context (raw text already in hand rather than a file or URL), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the text-mode counterpart to file-oriented extractors.

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