extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses that this is a copy-out (source image untouched) and that it returns size, SHA1, and MD5, compensating for the absent output schema. It omits overwrite behavior when files already exist in out_dir and any permission/error conditions.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination, with the return values trailing. No wasted words.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return values and the out_dir path semantics, which is more than most. But it leaves half the parameters and file-existence/overwrite behavior unspecified.

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 there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies out_dir ('relative to, or inside, the output root') and hints at ADS via 'stream', but leaves ref, name, part, and stream unexplained, which is a substantial gap for selecting the correct file/stream.

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 and resource: 'Copy a file (or ADS) out of the image into out_dir.' The destination (out_dir) implicitly separates it from read/ls/stat siblings, though no sibling is named 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer when to call extract versus read or disk_read rather than being told.

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