mes_extract_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not indicate side effects, permissions required, whether it modifies the document, or any other important behavior. The term 'extract' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, leaving uncertainty.

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, short sentence—concise but arguably too terse. It front-loads the action but omits critical details. Being concise is good, but not at the expense of clarity for a tool with minimal other documentation.

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 the tool complexity (extracting structured records from tables) and the existence of an output schema, the description should provide context about what kind of records are extracted, how tables are 'detected', and what the expected output looks like. The current description is insufficient for an agent to properly invoke or interpret the tool.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level information. The only parameter, 'doc_id', is not explained—neither its format, source, nor role. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess what 'doc_id' refers to (e.g., a document ID, a table ID, etc.).

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 states 'Extract MES-like records from detected tables,' which gives a general sense of the tool's function. However, 'MES-like records' is vague and does not distinguish from sibling MES tools like mes_classify_document or mes_validate_data. A clearer purpose would detail what 'MES-like' means or how this extraction differs from other operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where extraction is appropriate. Sibling tools include several document and MES tools, but there is no differentiation or usage hints.

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