extract_atomic_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes the conceptual purpose and does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description implies a read operation but does not confirm it.

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 wasted words. The essential information (list of content types and purpose) is front-loaded. Highly efficient.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose but lacks details on return format or behavior. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more specific about what the tool outputs.

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 input schema is empty, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it does not detract.

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 verb (extract) and the resource (atomic content types from a long asset), listing the specific types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on breaking one asset into many posts, which is a distinct use case from adaptation or full pack retrieval.

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 primary use case: 'Use to break one asset into many posts.' It provides clear context for when to use this tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives. The sibling tool names serve as implicit exclusions.

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