vntextpatch_extractlocal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion direction (script to per-file JSON) and implies writing output, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., VNTextPatch installed), overwrite behavior, or error handling. This is a baseline level of transparency for an extraction tool.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every clause earns its place, and the exclusions are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 is simple (4 params, no output schema) and the description covers its core mapping, user-trigger phrases, and sibling exclusions. It does not mention the inverse tool vntextpatch_insertlocal or potential dependencies, but these are not necessary for basic invocation. Slight gap around what 'classic' implies, but overall sufficient for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters succinctly. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'scn/ks/…' and 'per-file .json', which aligns with the input and script parameters, but does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action: 'Classic VNTextPatch extractlocal: script → per-file .json'. It explicitly names the resource (scn/ks scripts) and the output format, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools vnt_extract and kirikiri_psb_* with concrete examples.

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 gives explicit when-to-use signals: 'When user says "scn to json" / "export script json", use this'. It also provides clear exclusions: 'Not vnt_extract(bundle.jsonl), not kirikiri_psb_*', which directly addresses alternative selection.

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