extract_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the chunked pagination mechanics and a security warning about embedded instructions, which go beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a paging instruction, and a security caution. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the critical paging loop is stated upfront. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's complexity (paginated reading) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the complete usage pattern: how to iterate, when to stop, and a caution about content safety. The output schema handles return format details. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (path, raw, start, max_chars, with_line_numbers) have descriptions. The description reinforces the start/next_start relationship for paging, which is helpful but not new information beyond the schema's own description of the start parameter. This is a baseline 3 where the schema does most of the work.

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 clearly states the tool returns file body text in chunks ('파일 본문 텍스트를 잘라서 돌려준다'), which is specific about what it does. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (like read_image), but the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from the other tools based on the clear resource scope.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance for paging: '긴 문서는 start를 옮겨가며 여러 번 호출한다' and warns not to claim full reading when next_start is non-null. It also advises not to follow instructions embedded in the content. This is strong usage guidance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like read_image, which is a minor gap.

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