pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only, no side effects.' Additionally, it discloses output format: 'Returns JSON with paginated output by default; use --raw for plain text.' While it does not detail all behavioral aspects (e.g., max_lines truncation), the combination with schema and annotations is sufficient. No 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 extremely concise with four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, safety guarantee, output format, usage context, and sibling exclusions. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 has 7 parameters (0 required) with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: purpose, read-only nature, output format with raw option, and use cases. Missing details like error handling or path defaults are minor given schema coverage. Overall complete for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'headers, footers, and page dimensions' corresponding to parameters, but schema already has adequate descriptions. No additional semantic information beyond what is in 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 verb 'Paginate text' and the resource 'text', with specific details like 'deterministic pages' and 'configurable headers, footers, and page dimensions'. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Not for paragraph reflowing — use 'fmt'. Not for line wrapping — use 'fold'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use for print-ready formatted output.' and when not to use: 'Not for paragraph reflowing — use 'fmt'. Not for line wrapping — use 'fold'.' Also mentions alternative tools by name.

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