indent_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose whether the operation is stateless, what the output format is, or any side effects. For a text-transform tool, the absence of such details is a significant gap.

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 short and avoids fluff, but it reads as a fragment rather than complete sentences. The category label and cost information are useful, yet the structure does not effectively communicate core functionality beyond a restatement of the tool name.

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 schema provides no specific parameters and there is no output schema, the description needed to explain what inputs are expected (e.g., indentation amount, character) and what the tool returns. It does neither, making the tool effectively unusable without external documentation.

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?

The input schema contains only a generic 'params' object with no tool-specific properties. The description adds no parameter details whatsoever, making it impossible for an agent to know how to specify indentation amount or style. Schema coverage is nominally 100% but only for the generic wrapper, offering no real semantic value.

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 restates the tool name ('indent text') and appends the category 'Text & Encoding tool.' It conveys the basic operation (indenting text) but provides no detail on how indentation works (spaces vs. tabs, levels, etc.). It lacks sibling differentiation, as tools like wrap_text and pad_text are not mentioned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides a generic category label ('Text & Encoding tool') and cost information, with no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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