typesafe_extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral nuance. It adds that the tool cannot generate values and returns selected values, confidence, and review fields, which are useful behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The key constraint (cannot generate) is front-loaded in the second sentence, and the output summary is concise. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 four parameters, two required, and no output schema. The description gives a high-level purpose but omits details on how to specify fields and candidates, the meaning of confidence_threshold, and the exact shape of the return. An agent would need to rely on the schema, which itself is incomplete for two parameters, making the overall context insufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema covers source and comparison_model with descriptions, but fields and confidence_threshold lack descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, such as how to structure the fields array or what confidence_threshold controls. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 function: selecting supported values from pre-existing candidates, and explicitly notes it cannot generate values. This distinguishes it from generation tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like typesafe_rank or typesafe_verify. The verb 'select' and resource 'candidates' are specific enough to convey purpose.

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 when candidates already exist and need selection, and explicitly says it cannot generate values, suggesting it should not be used for generation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool over siblings. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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