word_tokenize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions handling of edge cases (contractions, hyphenated words) but omits behavior for whitespace, empty input, or output format. Provides moderate transparency but lacks completeness.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words, extremely concise with no redundant information. Every part adds value.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core function and special cases, though it could detail return format or empty input behavior.

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 only parameter is 'text'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating the tool splits text into word tokens, clarifying the parameter's role. More detail on format or constraints would improve it.

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 splits text into word tokens and lists special handling (contractions, hyphenated words, numbers, punctuation). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tokenization tools like sentence_tokenize.

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 the tool is for word tokenization but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., sentence_tokenize, n-gram generation). No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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