Check grammar

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: rule-based (not AI), fully on-device, deterministic. It also specifies return structure. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., text length, language support) or performance characteristics.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first describes the action and output; the second gives usage context. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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, the description explicitly details the return fields (character span, message, flagged text, suggested fixes). It also provides usage context related to AI tells, making the tool's role clear within the sibling toolset. Complete for a single-parameter tool.

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 single parameter 'text' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'The text to analyze.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a rule-based grammar and style check on text, specifies on-device operation, and details the output format (character span, message, flagged text, suggested fixes). It distinguishes from sibling tools (check_reuse, detect_ai_text, find_ai_tells) by targeting grammar/phrasing issues.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to tidy grammar and phrasing, before or after rewriting the flagged AI tells.' This provides context for when to apply the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling tools.

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