extract_text

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only states the return type (string) but omits details such as whether the operation is read-only, error conditions, encoding, or requirements for the input file.

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 that directly communicates the core functionality. There is no unnecessary information, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on error handling, return format, and any prerequisites (e.g., file existence). While the tool is straightforward, completeness would require at least a note on limitations or typical use cases.

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 single parameter 'path' is not described beyond what the schema provides. The description hints that the path should point to an HWPX file, but no additional semantic information (e.g., format, allowed locations) is given. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds minimal value.

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 action ('Extract'), the resource ('HWPX file'), and the output ('returns a string'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'extract_hwp_text', which likely serves a similar purpose for HWP files.

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 (e.g., extract_hwp_text for HWP files, or other text extraction tools). There is no mention of appropriate contexts or restrictions.

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