extract_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a meaningful guarantee (returned keywords are exact substrings of the input, not paraphrases) and that results are capped at k. However, it omits return format, ordering, what happens when fewer than k candidates exist, and the '[conductor: verified stochastic command]' tag implies nondeterminism without explaining it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the key constraint second, so there is little waste. The trailing '[conductor: verified stochastic command]' bracket is unexplained boilerplate that adds ambiguity rather than 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one behavioral guarantee but not the return shape or default behavior for the optional k. Adequate but with visible gaps an agent would need to guess around.

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%, so the description must compensate; it explains k as an upper-bound cap ('up to k') and implies text as the source. It does not state that k is optional or what default applies when k is omitted, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('salient keywords or short phrases') with a scoping constraint ('appear verbatim in the input text'). Clear enough to distinguish it from adjacent siblings like summarize or word_count, but it does not name or explicitly contrast any sibling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as summarize or classify_sentiment, nor any stated exclusions or preconditions. The 'verbatim' constraint hints at scope but is a behavioral property, not usage routing.

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