text_remove_line_numbers

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Pure local compute: read-only, non-destructive, offline, and rate-limited (60 requests/min for anonymous callers).' It also details return values (cleaned result, counts, pattern, confidence) and error conditions (empty input, invalid regex). 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 concise at 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then providing mode details and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 (three modes, regex parameter, rate limiting, return statistics) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: modes, usage scenarios, limitations (rate limit, error handling), and return values. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 significant meaning: explains auto mode samples first 10 lines, pattern mode uses customRegex, manual strips leading digits. It clarifies the reserved flag and default behaviors, enhancing understanding 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 'Remove Line Numbers' as the core function and specifies stripping leading line numbers and numbered prefixes. It distinguishes from sibling tool text_add_line_numbers by calling itself the inverse, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit use cases: cleaning pasted code listings, logs, or numbered output. It also mentions it's the inverse of text_add_line_numbers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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