text_ascii_text

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it runs locally, is rate-limited (60 req/min for anonymous callers), supports specific characters (A-Z, 0-9, space, few punctuation), and unknown characters render as blank space. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the sentence about local execution and rate limits is slightly verbose and could be condensed. Overall, it's efficient for a tool with 3 parameters and sibling comparisons.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema present, rich annotations), the description is completely sufficient. It covers all aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, parameter details, limitations, and sibling differentiation. No missing information for proper tool selection or invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: for 'text', it clarifies required, max length 50, and uppercasing; for 'font', it explains the visual difference (6 rows, hash chars vs. 3 rows, Unicode block glyphs) and fallback behavior; for 'width', it clarifies it's a reported line width, not a wrap/truncation setting, and values are clamped.

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 it generates ASCII-art banners from text, specifies the two fonts (block and small), and the character set. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools text_ascii_table and text_ascii_art by explaining they serve different purposes (reference chart vs. image-to-ASCII conversion).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for terminal headers, README titles and decorative plain-text banners') and directly names alternative tools for different tasks ('use text_ascii_table instead to look up ASCII character codes... or text_ascii_art to convert an image to ASCII').

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