text_ascii_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions generating output from input but does not specify what happens if no input is provided, how output is returned, or any side effects. The suggestion to use describe_tool shifts responsibility.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence ('Menu ID: ascii_text') is slightly redundant but not detrimental. Overall efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers typical use cases but fails to define the input mechanism, which is critical. The gap undermines completeness, especially for a tool that requires user input.

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?

With zero defined parameters and schema coverage at 100% (trivially), the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'from input' but does not specify the format or structure, leaving ambiguity. It adds marginal value beyond the empty schema.

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's purpose: generating ASCII banner text from input using block and small fonts. It specifies the resource (ASCII banner text) and the verb (generate), and distinguishes it from siblings like text_ascii_table by focusing on stylized headers and decorative banners.

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 clear usage contexts: 'for terminals, READMEs, and plain-text documents.' It also directs to describe_tool for full guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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