text_zwc_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reports positions, counts, and potential encoded message length, but does not mention whether it modifies input, requires permissions, or handles edge cases. The behavior is adequately described for a detection tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs essential information: what is detected, specific characters, and output types. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and sibling context, the description covers detection, characters, and outputs. It does not mention input encoding or format, but for a detection tool this is sufficient.

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?

There is one parameter 'text' with description 'Text to analyze' in the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Detect', the specific resource 'zero-width characters', lists the exact characters (ZWSP, ZWNJ, ZWJ, BOM), and specifies the outputs (positions, counts, potential encoded message length). It distinguishes from sibling tools like text_zwc_embed and 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., text_whitespace_detect, text_unicode_analysis). The description implies detection context but lacks when-not or alternative references.

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