extract_claims

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

The description adds context about extracting claims and negation patterns, and mentions structured output. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. It does not disclose other behavioral aspects like auth needs or rate limits.

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 minimal waste. The '[Pro]' prefix may be extraneous but does not significantly impact conciseness. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description can focus on purpose. It explains the extraction content but omits explanation of the note_path parameter. Given the low parameter count, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the description does not explain the 'note_path' parameter. The tool name and description imply a single note, but no additional meaning is provided for the parameter beyond what the schema indicates.

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 extracts quantitative claims and negation patterns from a single note, using specific verbs like 'Pull' and specifying the resource. However, it does not differentiate explicitly from sibling tools like 'find_contradictions' or 'check_pair'.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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