extract_manual_specs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses caching, the 'never invent' constraint, and potential `FileNotFoundError`. It also clarifies that `ctx` is unused, which prevents confusion. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but these are less critical for a PDF extraction tool. Overall, it provides solid behavioral context beyond what schema offers.

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 moderately sized but well-organized into description, Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Each section adds value. The mention of `ctx` may be unnecessary since it's not in the schema, and the Returns section partly repeats the opening sentence. Still, the structure aids readability and nothing is extraneous.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it does summarize them. It covers error handling with `FileNotFoundError` and mentions that the error message lists available manuals. It could have mentioned `list_machine_manuals` as a prerequisite, but the error handling covers discovery. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a 2-parameter tool with an output schema.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does: `file_name` specifies the location under `resources/machine_manuals/`, and `use_cache` explains caching behavior with its default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, which only shows types and defaults.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('machine specifications from an equipment manual (PDF)'), and enumerates example outputs (bearing designations, speeds, power ratings, text excerpt). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `search_bearing_catalog` by focusing on extraction from manuals, and from `read_manual_excerpt` by covering specifications rather than arbitrary excerpts.

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 provides explicit follow-up guidance: if a bearing's geometry is not in the manual, use `search_bearing_catalog(bearing_id=...)`, and if not there either, ask the user—never invent. It also explains caching behavior and that `use_cache` controls it, which tells the agent when to disable caching. This makes usage context and alternatives clear.

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