Extract Content Graph

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses high cost, character limit, output structure (nodes/edges with fields), and the need to pass the graph to subsequent tools. Lacks details on side effects or error conditions, but otherwise thorough.

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?

Structured with clear labels (【いつ使う】, 【入力】, 【出力】, 【注意】) and front-loaded with usage guidelines. Every sentence is necessary and concise, no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description describes the output structure (ContentGraph with nodes/edges and fields like group_id) thoroughly. It also provides usage context for subsequent steps, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 single parameter (text) has 100% schema coverage, but the description adds specific examples of acceptable content and a maximum character length (50,000), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: to graphify text from internal emails, meeting requests, agendas, etc., for the first time only. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (analyze_impact, update_content_node) by focusing on initial extraction.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (first time only) and when not to (second time or later for same document group), with reasoning about high cost. It implies alternatives: subsequent tools for later steps.

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