fabric_extract_wisdom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and suggests the output (insights, quotes, wisdom), but it does not clarify that the input must be text, which could mislead about handling videos/podcasts directly. This creates slight ambiguity but not a contradiction.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what it does, the types of content, and what output to expect. It misses the explicit clarification that videos/podcasts require transcribed text as input, which is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter ('The input text to process'). The description adds context about accepted content types but no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, resulting in baseline 3.

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 'Extract' with a clear resource ('key insights, quotes, and wisdom') and scope ('articles, videos, podcasts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fabric_summarize by focusing on extracting wisdom rather than summarizing.

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 clear context on what content this tool handles ('articles, videos, podcasts'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. There is enough context to infer usage, but no explicit exclusions.

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