maldoc_extract_macros

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively states the return format and explicitly mentions 'Read-only file analysis,' which clarifies that it's a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, file size limits, or performance aspects.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place: stating the purpose, specifying the return format, and clarifying side effects. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (extracting macros from documents) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, return values, and behavioral traits, but could improve by addressing usage guidelines or potential limitations to fully compensate for missing structured data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'file_path.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Extract raw VBA macros') and resource ('from an OLE document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'maldoc_analyze' which likely performs different analysis. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'maldoc_analyze' or other security testing tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios where extraction is needed, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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