tex_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('compact JSON summary'), which adds some value, but fails to address critical aspects like error handling, performance, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (extracting from TeX files), no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the action and output format, but lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter semantics, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 description does not add any semantic details about the single parameter 'tex_path' beyond what the input schema provides (which has 0% coverage, as the schema lacks descriptions). Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, such as explaining what 'tex_path' represents or any format requirements, resulting in a reduced score.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('definitions and lemmas from a TeX file'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'formalize_tex', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'formalize_tex' or other siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or specific scenarios where extraction is preferred over other operations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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