extract_components

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Suggest component extraction' implies a non-destructive analysis rather than an actual mutation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that no changes will be made or describe any side effects.

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, focused sentence communicates the core behavior without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool has one clear input and a simple purpose, so it is callable as described. However, without an output schema or any mention of what the suggestions return, the agent is left to infer the result format and how to act on it.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description 'Root node to analyze' is clear. The tool description adds no further detail about nodeId, so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 a clear action ('Find repeated patterns') and outcome ('suggest component extraction'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is distinct from siblings like list_components or create_component, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to identify repeated patterns as candidates for component extraction. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better alternative.

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