teams_workspace_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool extracts text and is fast, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., unsupported file types), size limits, or whether the file is modified (implied not). Moderate transparency, lacking depth.

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 efficiently convey purpose, supported types, output, and advantage. No redundant or unnecessary 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 one parameter, an output schema (exists), and simple functionality, the description covers key aspects: what it does, supported formats, and why to use it. Missing minor details like error handling, but output schema may compensate for return 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% with a clear description for the only parameter. The tool description adds context about supported file types but does not provide additional syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already offers for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states 'Extract text content from a binary file in the workspace' with specific verb and resource. Lists supported formats (DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, PDF) and emphasizes it returns plain text, distinguishing it from sibling tools like teams_workspace_read which likely read text files directly.

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 mentions being 'much faster than reading binary files through the filesystem server,' providing a clear context for when to use this tool over an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention unsupported file types.

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