generate_extractor_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., writing to a file), dependencies on other tools/configuration, or potential errors. The outputPath parameter implies file creation, but this is not stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices some clarity. Structurally, it is easy to parse.

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 code-generation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'extractor code' means, what 'current configuration' refers to, or whether any setup steps are required. The sibling tools suggest a workflow, but the description alone does not position this tool within it.

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% (both language and outputPath have descriptions), so the schema provides adequate parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Generate extractor code') and a context ('based on current configuration'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_selectors. However, it does not clarify what 'extractor code' entails or how it relates to the configuration, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to load configuration first) or scenarios where generate_selectors or test_extraction would be more appropriate.

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