truncate_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the $0.001 USDC cost via x402, which is useful, but nothing about side effects, default behaviors, or constraints (e.g., maximum input size, handling of Unicode). Very sparse.

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 wastes words repeating the tool name. The cost note is useful, but the structure lacks essential behavioral details; it is under-specified rather than 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a generic single params object, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to specify the text or the truncation length, what the function returns, or any edge cases. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the given information.

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 has only a generic 'params' object with 'Tool parameters as JSON object' as its description, providing no actual parameter names or meanings. The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving the agent with no clue what to pass.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('truncate text') and adds only a generic category label ('Text & Encoding tool'). It does not specify what truncation does (e.g., cutting at a character limit, adding ellipsis) or how it differs from sibling text tools.

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 instead of the many other text-manipulation siblings (e.g., convert_case, slugify_text, reverse_text). No mention of 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.