humanizer_quick_vocab_scan

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating 'no structural analysis' and detailing the output format ('JSON with found AI words, their positions, and replacement suggestions'). This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a usage paragraph, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity, the existence of an output schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It distinguishes from sibling tools and covers all necessary aspects.

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 description adds the note 'Contains the text to scan' for the 'params' argument, but the input schema already defines 'text' with a description. With schema description coverage at 0%, this minimal addition provides some clarification, but not enough to fully compensate.

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 it's a 'fast scan for AI-associated vocabulary only — no structural analysis.' This specifies the verb (scan), resource (AI-associated vocabulary), and scope (quick, no structural analysis), distinguishing it from sibling tools like humanizer_analyze_ai_tells.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'for a quick check when you just want to find and replace AI words without running the full analysis pipeline.' It provides clear context for when to use it and implies alternative usage (full analysis), though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.

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