extract_code_metadata

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does specify the expected content (metadata types) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'extract', but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it describe error handling or return format. This is a moderate level of disclosure.

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 two concise sentences, with the core function stated upfront and a secondary use-case sentence. Every word adds value, with no redundant information or filler.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, target language, metadata categories, and common use cases. It is missing details about output formatting or failure modes, but these are not critical for a simple extraction tool with one required input.

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 schema already provides a complete description of the single parameter (file_path) with a clear explanation. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific details, so the high schema coverage warrants a baseline score of 3.

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 and descriptive verb, 'Extract', paired with the resource, 'C++ code', and enumerates the exact metadata categories (classes, functions, properties, enums, structs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code or get_class_hierarchy, which have different purposes.

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 states it is 'Useful for analysis and custom documentation generation,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, which would be needed for a 5.

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