Extract Classes

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

Discloses that output_dir is optional and defaults to display only, which is behavioral. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, and description does not contradict. Adds value 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?

Exceptionally concise: a single-sentence purpose, brief parameter list, and one-line usage note. No redundant or vague language, well-structured with clear front-loading.

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?

Covers purpose and parameter basics but lacks explanation of output format (e.g., what 'separate text blocks' look like) and what 'pycutter-style code blocks' means. With no output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section largely repeats schema descriptions without adding new semantics or clarifying edge cases.

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-resource pair 'Extracts Python classes and functions' and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cc_analyze_code by emphasizing extraction of separate text blocks.

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?

States 'Useful for code review and documentation', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or how it differs from similar siblings (e.g., cc_analyze_methods).

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