extract_structured

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool runs a fixed question set and produces a markdown table with citations, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any limitations, rate limits, or side effects.

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 (approximately 100 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, and well-structured with sections for use case and arguments. No redundant information.

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 description covers arguments, use case, and prerequisite, but does not elaborate on the output format beyond 'markdown table'. Given an output schema exists, this is a minor gap; overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: topic with an example, fields with default values listed, and scope with valid options and a prerequisite reference. This adds substantial value beyond the schema names.

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 extracts a structured, cited evidence brief from the PDF library, specifying the action (extract), resource (structured brief), and differentiation from siblings like search_library by mentioning Elicit-style fixed question set.

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 advises that it is useful for systematic review scaffolding and mentions a prerequisite (index the library first with index_library_pdfs()), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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