Extract cloud asset references

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real value beyond them with 'without accessing them', telling the agent the references are extracted statically rather than fetched or validated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler, and the most important qualifier ('without accessing them') placed at the end without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple 1-param static extractor. The description is nearly sufficient, though it could say more about what the input text should contain.

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 single content parameter is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'from supplied text' weakly maps to it, but no format, size, or encoding guidance is given — marginal compensation for the 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?

Specific verb (Extract) plus the exact resource classes (AWS S3, GCS, Azure Blob, Firebase references) and the scope (from supplied text). This clearly separates it from siblings like secret_pattern_analysis or url_parameter_analysis.

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 implied by 'from supplied text', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to or away from alternatives such as secret_pattern_analysis. An agent can infer the context, but nothing is stated.

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