extract_local

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool runs locally, incurs no cloud cost, and returns extracted items as text shaped by `what_to_extract`. This gives the agent enough behavioral context to set expectations, though it does not mention latency, size limits, or failure behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The only weakness is minor redundancy: "without spending cloud-model tokens" is repeated by the later sentence "Runs locally at no cloud cost." Overall it is still tight and readable.

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 simple three-parameter tool with a full schema and output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, the kind of extraction to request, and the return form. It could improve by explicitly noting how it differs from sibling local tools, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters. The description adds some context by noting that `what_to_extract` shapes the output and providing example values, but this is reinforcing rather than substantially expanding on the schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Extract specific information from a text block." It then gives concrete target types (function names, URLs, error codes, TODO comments, dependency names), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling chat/ask/summarize tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it: to pull structured facts out of unstructured text, and positions it as a cost-saving local alternative to cloud-model extraction. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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