levenshtein_distance

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

There are no annotations, and the description provides no behavioral details such as input expectations, return format, or whether the operation is read-only. It only mentions cost, which does not disclose any functional behavior.

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 short but contains redundant information ('levenshtein distance' repeats the name) and only adds cost information. It is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, not genuinely concise.

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 tool requiring at least two string parameters and returning a numeric distance, the description provides no functional context. The cost note is irrelevant for invocation, and the tool is effectively unusable without additional 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 only defines a generic 'params' object with no specific properties, and the description adds no information about what parameters to provide. The agent is left completely in the dark about how to invoke the tool with the correct arguments.

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 'levenshtein distance — Other Utilities tool' merely restates the tool name and categorizes it as an 'Other Utilities tool'. It does not describe what the tool does (i.e., computes the Levenshtein edit distance between two strings), so the agent cannot infer its function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'word_similarity' and 'text_diff', the description offers no differentiation or selection criteria.

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