expand_text_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., mutating board state), if it's read-only, or any prerequisites. The description only describes the operation without disclosing safety or impact.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It effectively conveys the core purpose, earning its place. Slight deduction for lack of additional structure, but overall highly concise.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not detailed), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function but lacks details on input format, return value, and edge cases. A more complete description would improve usability.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'texts' parameter beyond 'in text strings.' The parameter type is an array with undefined items ({}), leaving ambiguity about allowed values (strings, objects?). The description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

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's action ('Expand') and the resource ('${VAR} placeholders in text strings'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_text_variables and set_text_variables that manage variable definitions rather than expand them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward, making it self-evident; a score of 3 is adequate as it meets the minimum viable without explicit guidance.

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