extract

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

The description explains that each item gets its own file with a backlink, but does not clarify what happens to the source document or what destructive action is performed despite destructiveHint being true. It does not disclose whether the source is modified or items are removed, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's effects.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key outcome. No filler or redundant information; every sentence 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?

The description covers the core workflow and file creation but lacks clarity on destructive behavior and does not explain the impact on the source or the role of the 'project' parameter. Since there is no output schema and annotations only signal destructiveness, the description is not fully complete but is adequate for a basic understanding.

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 description aligns with the schema's 'items' and 'source' parameters but does not add additional detail beyond what is already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It does not explain the 'project' parameter behavior or the 'type' field semantics beyond the schema.

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 items from a source document into individual vault files, specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like write or read by focusing on breaking out items from a source, which is a unique operation.

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 when wanting to break out decisions or learnings from a document, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like write or learn. It provides no exclusions or alternative guidance, so usage is only implied.

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