eywa_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of the Anthropic Claude model, auto-detection via PID tracing and mtime, and persistence of a handoff document. It does not mention potential side effects or idempotency, but the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for a low-complexity 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 concise (under 80 words), well-structured with a clear overview, bullet points for usage, and examples. Every sentence adds information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and underlying mechanism. It lacks explicit mention of the return value or error handling, but the intended audience can infer the output (a handoff document). It is largely complete for effective use.

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?

Despite high schema coverage (100%), the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the auto-detection mechanism for the optional session_id, providing examples, and clarifying behavior in both arg-presence scenarios. This transforms a simple parameter into a well-understood feature.

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 identifies the tool as extracting a handoff from a session, with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('handoff from session'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'eywa_get' by focusing on extraction and persistence at session end.

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 states the typical use case ('Called at end of session to persist a handoff document') and explains the two invocation modes (no args vs. with session_id). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or compare with 'eywa_get' for differentiation.

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