l2_extract_all_textures

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

No annotations provided, and description lacks behavioral details such as overwrite policy, file naming, performance implications, or error handling. It only states basic extraction action.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, directly communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, description lacks details on output behavior (naming, overwrite) and edge cases (e.g., no textures found). Adequate but leaves 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and description adds 'to a directory as PNG', but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what schema provides (e.g., auto-generation of output_dir, default class_filter). Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states verb (Extract), resource (all textures from a package), and output format (PNG files to a directory). It distinguishes from siblings like l2_extract_texture (single texture) and l2_batch_import_textures (importing).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Usage is implied for batch extraction of textures, but no guidance on when not to use (e.g., vs l2_extract_texture for single texture) or prerequisites.

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