strip_ansi_terminal_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by naming the exact classes of data removed: color codes, spinner bytes, and cursor movements. It also discloses the USDC cost. It could mention output behavior or limitations, but for a simple transform this is sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. The parenthetical cost is useful operational context and does not bloat the definition.

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?

For a simple one-required-parameter transform tool, the description covers what is stripped and from what kind of input. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap because the transformation result is implied, though a brief note about the returned cleaned string would make it fully complete.

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 the schema fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema already covers payload and paymentSignature semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Strips') and a precise resource: terminal ANSI color escape sequences, progress spinner bytes, and cursor movements in CLI outputs. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like clean_markdown_for_llm or strip_prompt_injection.

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 gives clear context: use this tool on CLI outputs containing ANSI escape artifacts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the targeted input domain is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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