text_add_line_numbers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions customizable options but the input schema has zero parameters, creating a contradiction. Key behaviors (e.g., whether it modifies original text, output format, token limits) are not disclosed. The referral to describe_tool for 'full page guidance' acknowledges incompleteness.

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 short but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Menu ID: add_line_numbers. Add Line Numbers.' repeats the concept). The recommendation to use describe_tool adds value but could be integrated more smoothly. At 2 sentences, it is not excessively long, but could be tighter.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover return values, error handling, and behavioral boundaries. It fails to do so, instead deferring to another tool. The context is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.

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 input schema defines no parameters, yet the description implies customizable formatting, padding, and numbering options. This mismatch is misleading. With zero parameters, the description adds confusion instead of clarity. Schema description coverage is trivially 100% because there are no parameters, but the description contradicts the schema, failing to compensate.

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 adds sequential line numbers to text, mentioning customizable formatting, padding, and numbering options. It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('Line Numbers'), making the purpose unambiguous. While it references a menu ID, the core action is well-defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_remove_line_numbers or other text modification tools. It does not specify prerequisites, ideal contexts, or exclusions. The brief mention of 'customizable options' does not clarify usage scope.

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