truncate

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the ellipsis-appending behavior and states the command is pure (no side effects), but it leaves the key edge case ambiguous: whether the ellipsis counts toward `max` (result could be max+1 chars) and what happens at max=0.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the core contract, with no wasted filler. The trailing '[conductor: verified pure command]' tag adds useful safety context (it supports purity), though it is meta-noise rather than natural description.

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 two-parameter pure text transform with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: the operation, the cut condition, and the appended character are all stated. Only the interaction between `max` and the ellipsis remains underspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `max` is a character budget and that `text` is what gets cut, but it does not resolve whether the appended ellipsis is inclusive of that budget — the one semantic detail that matters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Truncate text') plus the exact output contract ('at most `max` characters, appending a single-character ellipsis'). No sibling tool in the list performs truncation, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. In practice no sibling offers an alternative truncation behavior, so the missing guidance is low-risk but still absent.

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