Extract entities from CERIF XML

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns XPath, id text, and child count, and that it accepts a string or file. However, it states 'all instances' while the schema's limit parameter caps results (default 20), which is a significant undisclosed behavior. It also does not mention read-only status, error handling, or ordering.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second provides a concrete example. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the tool's core function and output fields, which is helpful. However, it omits the limit behavior (despite the schema), and does not clarify return structure or error cases. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete.

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 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param-specific meaning; it mentions 'string or file' which is already implied by the xml/file parameter descriptions. It does not enrich the understanding of entity, limit, or the input alternatives beyond what the schema already states.

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 all instances of a given entity element from a CERIF document' and specifies the output fields (XPath, id text, child count). The example 'list every <cfOrgUnit> or <cfProj_Pers>' clarifies the use case. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity (single entity) and list_entities (entity type list).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to extract all instances of a specific entity element from a CERIF document. The example reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it stops short of a 5.

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