extract_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses null handling for sub-selectors but does not state if the tool is read-only or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Four sentences front-loaded with purpose, then usage, parameter details, and edge case. No wasted words, though slightly more detail on usage vs alternatives could be added.

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?

Covers output format (array of objects), field spec syntax, null behavior. Lacks mention of error conditions or limit default, but overall sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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%, but description adds value by explaining field spec shapes (text, attribute, tuple) and null behavior, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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?

Description states it extracts repeated card patterns into an array of objects, and lists example use cases (HN-style lists, search results, product grids). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings like extract_cards by focusing on 'per-site eval boilerplate' collapse, but lacks explicit contrast.

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?

Explicitly says 'Right tool for...' and lists specific patterns, providing clear context for when to use. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong.

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