extract_interface

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns interface file content and class edits, uses zero-based coordinates, and requires load_project. However, it does not mention potential side effects like file overwriting, or whether the tool is idempotent.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose stated first, then returns, usage, output, important notes. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return type (interface file content and class edit) but lacks details on the exact format of the edit. It covers basic usage but could be more complete about output structure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that methodNames is optional and defaults to all public non-static methods, which provides context beyond schema. However, no significant additional meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts an interface from a class containing selected public methods, and distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools by specifying the specific resource (class) and output (interface file and class edit).

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?

Provides usage instructions (position on class, provide interface name, optionally specify methods) and prerequisites (requires load_project to be called first). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or advise when not to use this tool vs other extraction tools.

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