Docflow Extract Fields

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It communicates that the operation is a re-extraction on an already-processed file, which is useful and goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the extraction is synchronous/asynchronous, or any error/state implications, leaving part of the behavioral burden unmet.

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 two tightly worded sentences. The first sentence states the action and endpoint; the second gives the usage condition. No filler words or duplication of schema information.

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?

Given the output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, the only missing context would be operational details like task prerequisites. The description ensures the agent knows the file must already be processed. It does not explicitly mention that workspace_id and task_id are required, but the schema marks them required, so this is adequately covered.

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 the structured descriptions already explain each parameter. The tool description only adds general context about extracting 'specific fields' and does not add further meaning to the fields/tables formats beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 're-extract specific fields from an already-processed file' and includes the endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from the upload-and-extract sibling by emphasizing 'without re-uploading the file', so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you need to extract additional fields without re-uploading the file, or when the original extraction missed certain fields.' It does not name the sibling alternative explicitly (e.g., docflow_upload_and_extract), but the context makes the alternative obvious. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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