docs_extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by noting it is 'READ-ONLY' and explains the dual behavior (summary without tag, filtered endpoints with tag). This goes beyond the safety profile to clarify the tool's operational characteristics.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the usage condition and then explains behavior. The '[INSTRUCTIONS]' prefix is slightly redundant but not detrimental. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main use cases (with/without tag, filtering by method/search). It could mention the output format but is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.

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% so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining that omitting 'tag' returns a summary of all tags with endpoint counts, which is not in the schema. This clarifies default behavior and enhances interpretability.

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 the tool extracts structured endpoint information from OpenAPI, Swagger, or Postman specs. It specifies the action (extract), resource (endpoint info from specs), and scope (filtering by tag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_read (which likely reads raw content) and docs_search (which searches).

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 instructs to use 'ONLY when docs.read has identified an OpenAPI/Swagger spec URL or Postman Collection.' It also explains behavior when tag is provided vs. not, giving clear guidance on when to use and what to expect.

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