AI Text Detection

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

The description adds cost per word (1 credit per word) beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). While annotations already cover safety, the cost is a behavioral trait. However, it does not discuss reliability thresholds or output format.

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 concise (one sentence plus cost info) and front-loaded. The only minor waste is repetition of 'detect'. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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?

The description lacks return value details (e.g., score or percentage). With no output schema, the agent cannot infer what the tool returns. Also, the priority order among text/file/website is described in the schema but not in the description, which could be helpful. The cost is mentioned, but completeness is insufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema; the cost note applies to the tool overall, not specific parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Detects AI content in a given text to detect the likelihood of the text being written by an AI.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ai-image-detection (image focus) and plagiarism-detection (plagiarism focus).

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?

The description implies usage for text-based AI detection and mentions cost, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like plagiarism-detection. No exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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