extract_claims

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait (rejecting uncited claims) beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens to claims with valid citations, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a specific, non-redundant behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are minimal, so the description must provide context. It covers the core action and a key rule, but lacks workflow context (e.g., when to call relative to create_audit or extract_facts) and does not define terms like 'host claim' or 'valid line citation'. Adequate for a simple tool but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (audit_id, selected_paths, use_sampling). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract claims') and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'extract_facts', which appears to be a similar resource-extraction operation.

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 behavioral rule ('reject every host claim without a valid line citation') implies a quality-control use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_facts' or 'discover_sources'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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