extract_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function (extracting schemas) without mentioning if the operation is read-only, if it requires any permissions, or what happens on failure. The supported formats are listed, but key behavioral traits are missing.

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 composed of two short, information-dense sentences. Every word contributes: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second lists supported languages. No wasted text, and the critical info is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and supported inputs, but does not mention the output format or behavior in edge cases (e.g., unsupported file type). For a simple extraction tool, it is minimally viable but leaves gaps in expected return value and error handling.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description 'Path to source file (any supported language)'). The description adds value beyond the schema by listing the specific supported languages (TypeScript, Python, etc.), which clarifies the acceptable input and adds context to the parameter's scope.

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 'Extract API schemas from a single file', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It lists supported languages, making the tool distinct from siblings like extract_schemas (which likely handles multiple files). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions are given. The user must infer from the tool name that it is for single files, but no contrast with sibling tools is provided.

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