extract_assets

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 does an excellent job describing key behaviors: progress tracking with specific output format, automatic categorization into folders, smart naming, composite group handling, and final summary. It even provides implementation details ('Look for "isCompositeAsset: true"'). The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about permissions or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('HOW IT WORKS', 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW') and uses bullet points effectively. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value. The front-loading of the core purpose is excellent, though the workflow section could be slightly more concise.

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 complex asset extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial behavioral context. It explains the extraction process, categorization, naming, progress reporting, and provides a workflow. The main gap is the lack of explicit information about return values/output format, though the 'final summary' hint partially addresses this.

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 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format requirements for file_key or matching behavior for page_name/frame_name). However, it does provide context about the output_dir's purpose through the workflow example.

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 specific action ('extract all assets') and resource ('from a frame'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'extract_styles' or 'get_screenshot'. It explicitly mentions what types of assets are extracted (icons, images, composites) and how they're processed, providing clear differentiation from other tools.

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 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' section explicitly states when to use this tool ('extract_assets → download all') and provides a clear prerequisite ('get_frame_info → see what assets exist and identify composite groups'). It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for styles extraction or screenshots, which are handled by sibling tools).

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