mask_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a practical detail but not about the tool's actual behavior (e.g., does it mutate input, handle various text types, or have side effects?). The core masking operation is entirely opaque.

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 it is under-specified rather than concise. The phrase 'mask text' repeats the tool name, and while the cost note is useful, the overall structure fails to front-load essential functional information. Every word should add value, but most of it is redundant or trivial.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a generic params schema, the description needed to explain the tool's function and parameters thoroughly. It provides neither, making the tool impossible to use correctly solely from the description.

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 wrapped as a catch-all, so schema coverage is 100% only in the sense that one generic parameter exists. The description adds no meaning about what parameters (e.g., text, mask character, visible chars) are expected or how they behave, failing to compensate for the absence of real schema detail.

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 'mask text — Other Utilities tool' merely restates the tool's name and category without explaining what 'mask' does (e.g., hidden characters, format preservation). It provides no verb+resource combination beyond the name itself and does not distinguish it from sibling text utilities.

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 like hash_text, encode_base64, or other text transformations. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for tool selection.

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