Buscar placeholders en texto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool detects placeholders but does not mention whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The list of detected patterns is useful, but important behavioral details 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word adds value: it lists explicit patterns and gives a practical example, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value. It only says what is detected, not whether the tool returns a list, a count, or a boolean. The example with read_document provides some context, but the lack of output semantics leaves the tool incomplete.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'text' with a string type and minLength. The description adds meaning by indicating that the input should be plain text and ties it to a use case like read_document. However, it does not explain the expected format or whether the text is a single string of arbitrary length.

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 function: detecting specific placeholder patterns like [...], TODO, TBD, XXX, and lorem ipsum in plain text. It names the resource (text) and the action (detect), and the example with read_document helps distinguish it from sibling tools focused on structure or headings.

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 clear context by specifying that it operates on plain text, with an example use case (read_document). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the example and the tool name make the intended usage clear.

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