extract_key_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions using YAKE algorithm but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has any side effects. Basic behavioral traits are missing.

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, consisting of a main sentence and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Could be slightly more concise by omitting 'using YAKE' if unnecessary, but overall efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details about document sources, prerequisites, and how the tool selects between file and category. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter's meaning: relative_path is a single file path, category is a category folder, top_n is number of terms. However, it does not clarify the mutual exclusivity of relative_path and category or define what constitutes a valid 'category'.

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 keywords from one document or an entire category,' clearly indicating the verb (extract) and resource (keywords from document/category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_document or search_documents, but does not specify what 'category' refers to exactly.

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 explains parameter usage: relative_path for a single file, category when relative_path is not set, and top_n for number of terms. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when keyword extraction is preferred over reading the full document.

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