persian_lorem_ipsum

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key traits: deterministic output, seed-driven, and an original word list rather than quoted real prose. It does not state the return format (a plain text blob per paragraph), whether seeds default when omitted, or that generation is side-effect free.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the core identity and the determinism caveat front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing is padded.

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 4-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and determinism but leaves output shape and three parameter meanings entirely to inference. Adequate for a low-risk snippet generator, but not 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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the seed concept ('seeded') but says nothing about paragraphs, wordsPerSentence, or sentencesPerParagraph; those names are largely self-explanatory, which limits the damage.

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 resource (Persian placeholder text) with a clear use case (mockups), and the parenthetical clarifies what it is not ('not real prose'). It is unambiguous, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'generate' and has no sibling to be differentiated from since no other lorem tool exists.

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?

'for mockups' implies the intended context, which is the only realistic use case for a placeholder generator. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing and no mention of alternatives (e.g. rtl_starter_snippet, which also supplies sample Persian content).

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