extract_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'find' and 'suggest' implying a read-only analysis, but does not confirm whether it is destructive, requires any permissions, or what the output format is. The behavioral profile is ambiguous.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action ('Find repeated patterns') and context ('suggest component extraction'), making it efficient and clear.

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 no output schema and one parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'suggest' entails (e.g., list of components, coordinates), how patterns are determined, or any constraints. For a tool that likely returns complex suggestions, more detail is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Root node to analyze' which matches the schema's param description, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Find repeated patterns and suggest component extraction' uses specific verbs ('find', 'suggest') and a clear resource ('repeated patterns', 'component extraction'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_component' or 'component_audit' by implying analysis and suggestion rather than creation or auditing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to components (e.g., 'component_audit', 'create_component'), the absence of usage context or exclusions leaves the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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