Scan Emoji

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and non-destructive. The description adds that it 'shows ASCII alternatives' and that scanning can be recursive or filtered by extensions, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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—two short sentences plus a bullet list of args. Every sentence adds value, and the structure (one line summary, then args) is clear. No fluff.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, single purpose), the description covers the essential aspects. The absence of output schema is fine; the result is likely a list of found emojis with alternatives, which the description implies. Could mention what 'shows ASCII alternatives' means (e.g., output format) but not critical.

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%, but the descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'Path', 'Recursive'). The tool description adds context: path is a file or directory, recursive is for recursive scanning, and extensions specifies which file types. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 scans files for emojis and shows ASCII alternatives, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like cc_fix_encoding or cc_fix_umlauts which handle encoding/umlaut issues, not emoji detection.

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 mentions usefulness for systems that don't support Unicode/Emoji, giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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