Extract Classes

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms it extracts and displays or saves output without modifying the file. The description adds context about output behavior (display only vs. save to directory), which goes beyond annotations.

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 with two short paragraphs, and the key information is front-loaded. However, the Args list format could be more 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?

Given the simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what is extracted (classes and functions) and the two modes (display or save). No critical gaps remain.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. The description restates the parameters but adds that output_dir is optional and that display is the alternative. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 it extracts Python classes and functions from a file as separate text blocks, specifying the resource (Python file) and action (extract). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cc_analyze_code or cc_analyze_methods, which also analyze code.

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 mentions it is useful for code review and documentation, implying appropriate use cases. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to use cc_analyze_methods instead.

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