bpcs_extract

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the extraction process (gathers bits, assembles, analyzes for structure) which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the file (non-destructive) or mention any required permissions.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second elaborates on the process. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a good overview of the tool's workings. It does not mention return format or file type constraints, but schema covers file_path type. Reasonably complete for a complex extraction tool.

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 descriptions are detailed (100% coverage) and the tool description adds context by explaining how the parameters (threshold, plane) affect the extraction logic. This goes beyond the individual parameter 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?

Description clearly states 'Extract data from BPCS complex regions' and details the process (gathers bits from blocks exceeding threshold, assembles in raster-scan order). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bpcs_detect and bpcs_complexity_map, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is used after detection, but does not mention appropriate contexts or mention sibling tools.

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