extract_code_examples

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 mentions 'extract and organize' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how it handles errors, or the format of the output. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of extracting and organizing code examples, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, output format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (source_path, output_path, categories) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how categories are used or what 'organize' entails, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'extract and organize' and the resource 'code examples from tests, demos, and source files', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_codebase' or 'generate_documentation', which might also involve code processing, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 'generate_documentation' or 'analyze_codebase'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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