show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions suffix matching and the --signature option, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, or other side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words. Excellent conciseness.

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 the main behavior, parameter semantics, and a usage tip. It does not explain the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is fairly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining suffix matching behavior (e.g., 'Foo.Bar' matches '*.Foo.Bar') and the function of the --signature flag, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 action ('extract') and the resource ('full source body of one or more symbols from a file'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like grep (text search) and outline (structure) by specifying symbol extraction.

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 implies usage for extracting symbol bodies and mentions suffix matching and the --signature flag, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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