cleandiacritics

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It tells the agent that diacritic characters are replaced with ASCII equivalents, but leaves ambiguity about the exact mapping (e.g., 'ø' to 'o', 'ß' to 'ss') and does not mention how non-diacritic characters are handled (presumably unchanged). No edge cases, such as Unicode combining marks, are addressed.

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 with an imperative verb ('Replace') and no filler or repetitions. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 string transformation tool, the description is largely complete. It defines the action and input, and the output is implicitly the transformed string. However, it lacks details on edge cases (like 'ß' mapping) and does not specify the return type or whether the original string is preserved, though these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description's reference to 'a string' provides the only clue that the tool operates on a string input. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema and aligns with the baseline for 0 parameters (4).

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 a specific action ('Replace all diacritic characters') and resource ('in a string'), and defines the transformation as 'closest ASCII equivalents'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clean_whitespace or slugify, which target different string transformations.

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 implies usage: you use it when you need to remove accents from a string. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as when more complex slugification is needed or when preserving non-ASCII characters matters.

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