detect_direction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-mutating ('Report') and provides the decisioning outcome ('what to set dir to'). It doesn't describe edge cases or return format, but for a simple inspection tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, directly front-loaded with the action and output, and no wasted words. Every clause adds value.

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 tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, when to use, and what is reported. It lacks exact return format but that is not critical for selection and invocation. Adequate for a simple detection tool.

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 schema fully documents the one parameter ('text' with description), and the tool description adds context about use cases (label, database field, user content) but no additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and defines the resource (a string) and the exact output categories (right-to-left, left-to-right, mixed, neutral). It also adds 'what to set dir to', clearly distinguishing this detection tool from siblings like lint_rtl_code and normalize_arabic.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when you need to decide the direction of a label, a database field or a block of user content.' It gives clear context but does not provide exclusions or alternatives, though the sibling tools are obviously different, so this is sufficient.

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