api_surface

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states what is extracted. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires network access, or has side effects. The bare description leaves the agent uninformed about operational characteristics.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. The main action is presented first, followed by parameter explanation. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 simple extraction tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It could mention the return format or highlight that it finds API definitions, but completeness is adequate given the presence of an output schema.

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 has zero description coverage for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds 'Absolute path to the repository root directory', which clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage. This compensates well for the sparse 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 'Extract the complete API surface' and lists specific API types (REST, MCP, CLI, GraphQL, gRPC, public exports). This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like full_extraction or patterns.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or when to prefer sibling tools like full_extraction or patterns.

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