string_unescape

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states malformed sequences and unknown style raise ValueError, and returns {style, result}. It doesn't mention side effects or explicitly state it's read-only, but the behavior is well-covered for a pure function.

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?

Three concise sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second lists styles and errors, third gives an example. Perfect front-loading.

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 two well-documented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers behavior, errors, and example. No gaps apparent for this tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by listing all styles and providing an example of use, which clarifies the style parameter beyond the enum list.

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 it reverses escaping back to original text, identifies itself as the inverse of string_escape, and provides an example. It distinguishes from sibling string_escape.

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 explicitly says it's the 'style-for-style inverse of string_escape' and lists supported styles. It implicitly tells when to use (for unescaping) but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not conditions.

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