text_extract_emails

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list or string, how it handles invalid input, or if it deduplicates email addresses. The simple 'extract' leaves too much ambiguity.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with no filler. Every word is functional and to the point. Appropriate for such a simple tool.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description lacks completeness. It does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON array of strings), whether duplicates are removed, or how edge cases like no emails are handled. The agent is left guessing.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name 'text'. The param is just a string, but no format, length, or content guidelines are provided. The description offers no compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 function: 'Extract all email addresses from a text.' It uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('email addresses'), distinguishing it well from sibling tools like text_extract_phone_numbers or text_extract_urls.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context where this extraction is appropriate vs other regex or parsing approaches.

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