text_detect

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

The description lists what is checked but lacks information about output format (e.g., boolean, score, list of findings) or behavioral traits like handling of errors, performance, or limitations. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and is only partially informative.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the main purpose and then listing checks. Every word adds value.

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 tool with a single string input and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete: it does not describe the return value, how results are presented, or what 'unusual patterns' entails. Given the many sibling tools, more context would help an agent decide whether to use this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'text' described as 'Text to analyze'. The description adds context about what the tool does with the text, but no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verb 'auto-detect' and lists multiple detection categories (zero-width characters, whitespace encoding, invisible Unicode, homoglyphs, unusual patterns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like text_zwc_detect or text_whitespace_detect which are narrower in scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools. The description implies it's a comprehensive detector, but doesn't state scenarios where a more specific tool (e.g., text_homoglyph) would be better or how to interpret results.

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