extract_strings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the scanning intent and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output format, handling of comments or string delimiters, duplicate handling, or behavior on parse errors. This is a gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 brief and front-loads the core operation in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a practical use case. No filler or redundant material is present, though it is slightly thin on behavioral detail.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys the basic operation and a use case. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, deduplication, positions) or any edge-case behavior, leaving some uncertainty for an agent invoking it blind.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter adequately. The description adds only general context ('script') and does not introduce any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (scan) and resource (script) and clearly identifies the output (all string literals). It is distinguishable from related tools like read_pawn_script or inspect_project by focusing on string literal extraction, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 gives a usage context ('useful for localization or cleanup') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_pawn_script or audit_script, nor does it mention any exclusions or limitations such as file type restrictions.

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