import.extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits beyond the schema: it license-checks, resolves dependencies, adapts style, and returns code with attribution. It stops short of stating auth requirements, failure modes (e.g. what happens when a license check fails), or whether the extraction is read-only/harmless.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action and its differentiators are stated immediately and the return value is placed last. Every fragment earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its transformation pipeline, and the shape of the return (ready-to-paste code with attribution). It is nearly sufficient, only missing failure/edge behavior and auth context.

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%, so all five parameters (ref, path, repo, symbol, adaptStyle) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely alludes to adaptStyle ("style-adapted") and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("Extract") and resource ("a function/module from a GitHub repo") and enumerates the tool's distinctive pipeline: provenance, license-checking, dependency resolution, style adaptation. It is clearly understandable on its own, though it does not name any sibling (e.g. github.repo_file or code.symbols) to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Returns ready-to-paste code with attribution" suggests the use case of pulling external code into your project. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites (auth, rate limits), and no statement of when not to use it.

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