extract_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: input must be UTF-8 decodable text and file size is capped. It says nothing about failure behavior on non-UTF-8 or oversized files, filesystem permission requirements, or what the extraction produces.

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?

A single compact sentence with the source constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage for a tool with a nested free-form 'schema' argument. The description should be compensating for that structural silence but instead offers only one clause, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently beyond the happy path.

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% across three parameters (path, schema, hint), one of which is a nested free-form object, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. An agent gets no guidance on what 'hint' does or what shape the 'schema' object should take, which is the main ambiguity for this tool.

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 the operation (extract) and the source (a local file), and its phrasing 'Like extract ... from a local file' positions it as the file-input counterpart of the sibling extract tool. It is clearly distinguishable from classify_file/summarize_file by the verb, though it never states what is extracted (e.g. structured data per the schema).

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?

'Like extract, reading UTF-8 text from a local file' implies usage (choose this when the input is a file rather than inline text), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative. Usage is left to inference from the sibling reference.

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