extract_domain_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not persist data (preview only) and describes the return structure. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a preview operation, the key non-persistence behavior is explicitly disclosed.

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 and well-structured: four sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the middle sentences explain the preview-then-persist workflow, and the last sentence lists the return keys. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose, workflow, and return structure, especially given the output schema is available. The only gap is the unexplained design_id parameter, which slightly reduces completeness, but overall it provides enough context for correct usage.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what design_id refers to or its format. It only mentions design_id in the return dict, which hints at its role but does not define it. With a single required parameter, the description should clarify its meaning, and it does not.

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 the tool extracts domain knowledge from review comments as a preview, with an explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling save_extracted_knowledge by noting it returns entries for review before persistence and instructs calling save_extracted_knowledge to persist.

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 provides clear context: use this tool for previewing extracted knowledge before persisting, and explicitly names save_extracted_knowledge as the persistence step. However, it does not contrast with other related tools like get_domain_knowledge, leaving some usage ambiguity for alternatives.

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