extract_source_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: it prefers the source jar and falls back to decompilation. However, it omits other important behaviors such as summarization of large content, line limiting, and whether network/download operations are involved. These gaps matter given the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the core behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a high-level summary, though it leaves behavioral detail to other dimensions.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, including flags like max_lines and summarize_large_content, yet the description explains none of their interaction. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent has no indication of return format, error conditions, decompilation limits, or network behavior. For an operation of this complexity, the description is too sparse.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by explaining the 'source jar vs decompile' tradeoff, which loosely aligns with prefer_sources, but it does not meaningfully enrich the meaning of the Maven coordinates, class_name, max_lines, or summarize_large_content beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Extract') and a concrete resource ('source code'), and clarifies the two paths: extracting from a source jar or decompiling bytecode. This distinguishes it from siblings like extract_class_info and extract_method_info, which focus on metadata rather than source code, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 this tool is for obtaining source code when a Maven artifact is identified, and it conveys a fallback path (decompile bytecode if source jar is unavailable). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like extract_class_info or extract_jar_resource, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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