wrap_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals no details about the transformation performed, input constraints, return format, side effects, or cost behavior beyond a price note. Essentially nothing is disclosed beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. While there is no waste, it fails to provide the operational detail needed for a tool invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the input schema is only a generic params wrapper. The description must fully compensate for these gaps but does not, leaving the agent unable to determine inputs, outputs, or behavior.

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 exposes only a generic 'params' object with a generic description of 'Tool parameters as JSON object,' and no tool-specific properties are defined. The description adds zero parameter semantics, leaving the agent without any idea what arguments wrap_text accepts (e.g., text, width, break type).

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 ('wrap text') and adds only a broad category label ('Text & Encoding tool'). It doesn't specify what wrapping entails (line width, word wrap, style) or differentiate it from sibling tools like line_wrap, truncate_text, or pad_text.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra context is the fixed cost via x402, which is not a usage cue. Sibling tools like line_wrap could serve a similar purpose, but no comparison or exclusion is provided.

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