text_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'executes Splitwise actions' and returns results, implying mutation, but it does not specify authentication requirements, side effects, or the scope of actions possible. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise with only three sentences plus Args/Returns, every sentence adds value. The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the structure is clean and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a natural language command processor and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input and output adequately. It provides a clear example and distinguishes from audio input. However, it could mention the AI model (Gemini) and the range of possible actions for completeness.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing the 'text' parameter as a 'Natural language command' with a concrete example ('Split 50 with Sumeet for dinner'), which helps the agent understand usage. However, it could provide more format guidance.

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 clearly states the tool processes text commands for Splitwise by interpreting natural language and executing actions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'voice_command' by noting this version is for text input instead of audio, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool ('when you already have text instead of audio'), which differentiates it from the sibling 'voice_command'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide guidance on alternatives among other siblings for specific tasks, missing some depth.

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