text_whitespace_extract

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes the decoding process but does not specify output format, behavior when no encoding is present, or any edge cases. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by encoding details. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input and algorithm but omits output format (e.g., is the extracted message returned as a string? Is the original text modified?). This gap reduces completeness.

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 one parameter 'text' has minimal schema description. The tool description adds significant detail: it reads trailing whitespace and decodes space/tab binary. This compensates well for the sparse 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 extracts a specific type of hidden message (whitespace-encoded) and details the encoding scheme (space=0, tab=1 binary from trailing whitespace). It is distinct from sibling tools like text_whitespace_detect or text_zwc_extract.

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 implies use when text may contain whitespace encoding but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., text_whitespace_detect). The context of siblings provides some differentiation but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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