humanizer-report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, particularly the note that 'added' does not affect the exit code and that out-of-scope inputs receive an out-of-scope status.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the tool's output contents before moving to restrictions. Every clause adds useful information; the sentence is somewhat long and run-on, but it remains readable and information-dense.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers scope limits, what the report contains, and an important exit-code nuance. It does not elaborate on all report fields, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, and the two parameter descriptions are identical, but the parameter names text_before/text_after make their roles reasonably clear in context.

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 that the tool produces a machine-readable edit report and enumerates its components (keep/add/delete tokens, adapted SARI, edit classes, fact check, MTLD). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like humanizer_polish and humanizer_detect by the report-focused framing, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as a contrast.

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 includes an explicit 'Когда не использовать' section listing exclusions: non-Russian texts and source code, and use cases where authorship/quality/style verdicts are needed. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the negative guidance is concrete enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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