slug_case

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior of producing multiple case variants, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the return structure (e.g., a single string, array, or object) or how edge cases like special characters are handled, leaving ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all supported variants with zero wasted words. It earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not specify whether the output is a string, an array of variants, or an object with named keys. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to predict the tool's behavior.

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 fully describes the single 'text' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's 'Text to convert' definition, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') with a clear resource ('text') and enumerates the exact output formats (slug/kebab, snake_case, camelCase, PascalCase, CONSTANT_CASE, Title Case). This distinguishes it from sibling text utilities like hash_text or base64_codec.

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 other text utility siblings. There is no mention of when not to use it, no alternatives, and no context for choosing it over similar utilities.

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