extract_lisp_functions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word 'extracts' plus the output schema make the read-only nature and return shape reasonably evident, but it says nothing about behavior on malformed or partial code, whether partial matches are returned, or how nested/quoted defuns are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical example pattern is the most information-dense element and arrives immediately. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and for a one-parameter extraction tool the description covers the core scope. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases on invalid input, which is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'code' parameter, so the schema only supplies a name and type. The description partially compensates by establishing that the input is AutoLISP source code, but it says nothing about formatting expectations, size limits, or whether the code must be a complete file versus a snippet.

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?

States a specific verb (extracts) and a specific set of resources (function definitions, argument lists, localized variables) from AutoLISP code, with the '(defun C:...)' pattern making the target concrete. It does not compare itself to siblings like analyze_lisp_syntax or check_missing_cleanups, so the agent must infer the boundary from tool names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for pulling function signatures and local variables out of LISP source, and that syntax analysis or cleanup checking belong to the siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no stated prerequisites or input constraints.

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