extract_text_from_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for unsupported formats or corrupted files), performance (e.g., speed or size limits), or output specifics (e.g., text encoding or formatting). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and supported formats without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the complexity of a file processing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output behavior (e.g., what the extracted text looks like, error messages), performance constraints, or usage context. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('filePath' and 'fileType') with descriptions and an enum for 'fileType'. The description adds minimal value by listing the supported formats, which aligns with the enum, but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: extracting text content from document files, with specific formats listed (PDF, Word, TXT, MD). It uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('text content from document files'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_wordcloud_from_file' or 'generate_wordcloud', which appear to be different operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists supported formats but doesn't mention when to choose this tool over sibling tools (e.g., for text extraction vs. word cloud generation) or any prerequisites, such as file accessibility or format limitations beyond the listed ones.

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