lampa_api_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'extract' which implies read-only access, but it does not explicitly disclose safety profile, auth requirements, or behavioral traits (e.g., whether it uses cached data or performs static analysis). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states the action and scope, second sentence adds key details about the output. No redundant words, well front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (modules with sub-methods and file usage count). It covers parameters and output. However, it lacks details on limitations, performance, or data freshness, which would be nice but not critical for a simple extraction tool.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions that clearly explain the 'module' and 'scope' parameters. The tool description does not add much beyond the schema for the parameters themselves, but it does provide context about the output (modules, sub-methods, usage count) which indirectly aids understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('Extract the complete... API surface') and a clear resource ('Lampa.* global API surface'). It states it lists modules with sub-methods and file usage count, and declares its purpose for plugin development, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_modules that only list module names.

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 implies usage for plugin development but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_api_calls or list_modules. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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