codepoints

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it returns one entry per Unicode scalar, keeps astral characters whole, and explains the count vs len() difference. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does so well, though it could mention any assumptions about input handling.

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, with a clear purpose statement, detailed output explanation, and a helpful example. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains the return value fields and behavior. The example clarifies usage.

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 single parameter 'text' is already described in the schema. The description adds significant value by explaining the output structure and providing an example, exceeding the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool breaks text into code points with names and UTF-8/16/32 byte views. It uses specific verbs and resource details, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'decode', 'encode', and 'unicode_normalize' which have different purposes.

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 the tool is for obtaining detailed code point information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to siblings is provided.

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