extract_api_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('extract') but does not explicitly mention whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without important context.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Extract'. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, simplifying the description's job. However, the description is still incomplete because it omits input format specifics (path vs content) and the exact scanning behavior. It meets the minimum bar but lacks depth.

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?

The schema lists a single 'source' string with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the source is 'Spring controller source', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it does not clarify whether 'source' is a file path or inline code, leaving ambiguity.

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 the specific verb 'Extract' and defines the exact output format ({method, path}) and input type ('Spring controller source'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'detect_stack' or 'sql_to_flyway', which have different purposes.

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 phrase 'from Spring controller source' implies it is meant for analyzing Spring controllers, giving a clear use case. However, no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, 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.