extract_lang

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that files are written to a specific destination path — a real side effect an agent must know. It omits overwrite/merge behavior if the target slug directory already exists, whether directories are created, and what happens on a jar with no lang files.

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?

Two tight sentences with the destination path front-loaded and no filler. The trailing "Explicit use only." is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it does occupy minimal space.

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?

For a three-parameter file-writing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the agent unable to choose among the three identifier params or predict results. The return value (what the extraction reports) is undocumented and cannot be inferred from structured data.

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?

All three parameters (jarPath, modFile, instanceId) have 0% schema description coverage and none are required, so the description must explain them — yet it says only "a mod jar." It never indicates that these are likely mutually exclusive ways to identify the same jar, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would trip on.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — extracting a mod jar's lang files from assets/<modid>/lang/* into a named working directory — so the action and its output location are unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like check_lang_consistency and build_lang_pack, though it never names them to sharpen the distinction.

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?

"Explicit use only" signals this should not be auto-invoked, which is useful invocation policy, and "for translation" implies the workflow stage. However, it never says when to prefer this over check_lang_consistency or build_lang_pack, nor what prerequisites must exist (e.g., an installed instance or an existing lang-work directory).

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