tr

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only, no side effects'. It also explains default JSON output and the '--raw' option. Minor gap: does not explicitly state standard input fallback when no paths are given, but it's implied.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose and each sentence adding value. Slight redundancy in stressing 'NO regex' twice, but overall concise and clear.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, use cases, and exclusions. It explains output formats and required parameter. Could mention default input source, but overall complete enough.

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 context by explaining the --delete and --squeeze flags in usage, but it doesn't significantly extend the meaning beyond the schema descriptions. No deduction for missing param info.

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 'Translate or delete literal characters from files or stdin — character-by-character replacement (NO regex)', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'cut' and 'sed' by explicitly stating what it is not for.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('Use for simple character mapping'), when-not-to-use ('Not for regex-based substitution — use 'sed' externally. Not for column extraction — use 'cut''), and references to sibling tools ('See also 'cut', 'expand''). This is exemplary guidance.

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