string_trim

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as trimming whitespace but does not specify which characters are considered whitespace (e.g., spaces, tabs, newlines) or that the tool returns a new string without modifying the original. For a simple tool, this 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 extremely concise—only four words—and every word is necessary. It is front-loaded with the key information, making it easy for the agent to quickly grasp the function. There is no wasted text.

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 (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the input and action. However, adding a note that the trimmed string is returned would enhance completeness, as there is no output schema to document return values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'text' and 'trim_type' having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic context is provided.

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 'Trim whitespace from text' clearly specifies the action (trim) and the resource/object (whitespace from text), making the purpose immediately understandable. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'string_replace' or 'regex_extract', the context of string manipulation tools makes its distinct role clear enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'string_replace' (which could also remove whitespace) or 'regex_extract'. The description lacks context about suitable scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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