fmod_system_getText

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

Description mentions blocking nature and returns null if cancelled. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It lacks details on error handling, dialog appearance, or side effects, but the core behavior (blocking text input) is disclosed. Could be more comprehensive but sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and key behavior (blocking, returns null). Includes note on optional arguments and method signature. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate return behavior), but overall concise and front-loaded.

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 input tool with no output schema, description covers return value (string or null) and blocking behavior. However, it does not mention error conditions, platform-specific behavior, or whether it can be called in non-UI contexts. Given schema coverage and sibling set, description is mostly adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Parameters 'msg' and 'defaultText' have minimal descriptions in schema (empty for msg, '(optional)' for defaultText). Description does not add meaning beyond schema, such as format, constraints, or usage examples. With 50% schema coverage, description fails to compensate; it only mentions optionality of bracketed args.

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?

Description clearly states it prompts for text input and returns the string or null. Verb 'prompts for text input' and resource 'text input' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like fmod_system_getNumber (number input) and fmod_system_message (display message).

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?

Description indicates blocking behavior but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like fmod_system_getNumber or fmod_system_question. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites. For a simple input tool, the context is somewhat implied but lacks explicit directives.

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