fix_keyboard_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: ISIRI 9147 mapping, bidirectionality (Latin->Persian and Persian->Latin), and an auto-detection mode, all illustrated with a worked example. It stops short of edge-case behavior (mixed-script input, unmappable keys, handling of digits/punctuation), so it is not fully closed.

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?

One dense sentence: action first, mapping standard second, concrete example third, parameter hint last. No filler and nothing that could be dropped without losing information.

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 stateless, two-parameter text transform with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke it correctly – the direction semantics and the transformation contract. Only the individual enum values and edge-case handling are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of the 'auto' enum value ('picks by script') but leaves en-to-fa and fa-to-en implicit and says nothing about the required 'text' parameter beyond context. Partial compensation, hence a middle score.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('fix text typed with the wrong keyboard layout') and anchors it with a concrete bidirectional example ('sghl' -> 'سلام'), so the transformation is unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as normalize_persian_text or detect_text_direction, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 only routing guidance is the embedded note that direction 'auto' picks by script, which implies the tool is safe to call without knowing the direction. There is no statement of when to prefer this over normalize_persian_text or the other text-fixing siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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