text_sorter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is too brief. It does not disclose that input expects one item per line, that output is a sorted string, or any details about case sensitivity, blank lines, or behavior for random mode.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is very concise with no wasted words, though it could include more detail without becoming lengthy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or behavior for all modes (random is missing). A more complete description would address these gaps.

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 adds meaning by listing sorting modes (alphabetically, by length, reverse) which partially maps to the enum, but does not explicitly explain each enum value or default. Schema coverage is 50%, so description provides some compensation.

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 sorts lines of text and lists three sorting criteria (alphabetically, by length, reverse), distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_line_remover or text_reverser. However, 'reverse' is ambiguous and random mode is omitted.

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. Among siblings, tools like duplicate_line_remover or text_reverser exist, but no differentiation or context is given.

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