text_zwc_extract

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

The description discloses that the tool attempts both polarities (ZWSP=0, ZWNJ=1), which adds behavioral insight beyond the input schema. However, it does not explain behavior in cases of no ZWC characters, error handling, or return format, leaving some gaps.

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 very concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and the key action is front-loaded. Every sentence 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It explains the decoding mechanism (polarities) and the input. Missing output format details, but overall adequate.

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 only one parameter ('text') with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema's 'Text containing ZWC-encoded message'. Baseline 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 'Decode a zero-width character encoded message' with specific verb 'decode' and resource 'ZWC message'. It further details extraction and decoding of binary, distinguishing it from sibling tools like text_zwc_detect and text_zwc_embed.

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. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or cases where other tools (e.g., detect or embed) should be preferred.

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