extract_test_examples

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

The description discloses that it supports 9 languages with varying methods (Python AST-based, others regex-based), which is useful behavioral info. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover potential side effects, authorization requirements, or performance implications. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences long with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds meaningful detail. It could be more structured, but it is efficient and to the point.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, return format, or prerequisites. While it mentions language support and pattern types, it lacks depth for an agent to use it effectively without additional context.

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 input schema has 7 parameters and 0% description coverage. The description only hints at the 'language' parameter by mentioning 9 languages, but does not explain the purpose or usage of any parameter, including file vs directory, min_confidence, max_per_file, or output options. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema.

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 usage examples from test files, specifying the resource (test files) and the action (extract real API usage patterns). It includes details about the types of patterns (instantiation, method calls, configs, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_patterns or scrape_codebase.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or references to sibling tools. The user must infer its purpose from the general description.

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