text_duplicate_word_remover

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

The description outlines key behavioral options (order preservation, case sensitivity, punctuation control) but does not specify output format, error handling, or limitations. With no annotations, a bit more detail would be beneficial.

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 front-loaded but starts with a redundant 'Menu ID' line and ends with a reference to describe_tool that could be integrated. It could be more concise by removing the first sentence.

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?

The description does not explain the output format, how to specify options (sorting, case sensitivity), or the expected input structure. With no output schema, the description is responsible for explaining return values but fails to do so.

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 has no parameters and allows additional properties, but the description does not explain what the tool expects as input (e.g., a 'text' field). It adds no meaning beyond the 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 it removes duplicate words and mentions options like preserving order, alphabetical sort, case sensitivity, and punctuation control. It is distinct from sibling tools that remove duplicate lines or characters.

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 similar tools like text_duplicate_line_remover or text_remove_duplicate_characters. It directs to describe_tool for full guidance, which is external and not part of the description.

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