extract_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose return format, deduplication behavior, case sensitivity, or what '[conductor: verified pure command]' means in practical terms, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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 core instruction is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The bracketed conductor note is slightly extraneous, but the description remains appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter extraction tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It should do more to explain the return shape or edge-case behavior, but the simplicity of the operation keeps it from being critically incomplete.

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 only parameter, 'text', has no description in the schema. The description merely says 'from text', which identifies the input type but adds no constraints or semantics beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Extract all email addresses from text.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_urls and extract_contact by naming the exact extraction target, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_contact or redact_pii. The description only implies usage from the resource type and gives no exclusions or context for choosing this extractor.

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