kotor_extract_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Writes to disk' and includes a destructiveHint annotation within the description, alerting that it modifies the filesystem. However, it does not mention overwriting behavior, error handling, or directory creation. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences: a clear use-case trigger and a clarification on the 'source' parameter. The final 'Writes to disk' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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 has 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description explains the primary function and parameter usage but omits return value information. For a writing tool, agents might expect to know if the operation returns a success indicator or path. The description is sufficient for basic usage but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing possible values for 'source' (OVERRIDE, CHITIN, MODULES), which is not in the schema. This extra context helps agents choose the correct parameter values.

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 clearly states 'write a resolved resource to disk', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kotor_find_resource which does not write. The verb 'write' and resource 'resolved resource' are specific and unambiguous.

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 starts with 'Use when you need to write a resolved resource to disk', providing a clear trigger for usage. It mentions optional 'source' restriction, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. Given sibling tools, the context implies alternative actions like finding or describing, but not explicit.

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