iso_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the read mechanism (pure ISO9660/Joliet, no mount) and that output lands on the host inspect dir. It is silent on behavior the agent needs to trust: what happens when the member is absent, whether dest files are overwritten, and what the max_mb default of 64 does when exceeded.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its constraint, followed by hygiene and pairing advice. The path example earns its space; nothing is padded, though 'RULES.md' is a niche reference.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers mechanism, destination, and workflow placement. The only real gap is undocumented max_mb semantics and unspecified overwrite/error behavior for a tool that writes to the host filesystem.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it partly does via the worked example for member and dest, with iso_path implied. max_mb — the size guard with a default of 64 — is never mentioned, leaving a required-for-safety parameter entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource — extracting ONE file from an install ISO to the host inspect dir — and adds a concrete example with real member/dest values. The 'no mounting (pure ISO9660/Joliet read)' clause implicitly distinguishes it from mount-based siblings like vm_mount_iso, though it never names that alternative.

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?

It gives workflow guidance ('Inspection only', keep copies outside the rebuilt-OS repo, keep only interface facts in RULES.md) and names downstream tools (analyze_pe, dump_api_surface), but never states when to choose this over iso_inspect, iso_verify, or vm_mount_iso, all of which read/extract ISO content. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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