check_spelling

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

The description gives no information about side effects, permissions, read-only vs. destructive behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral aspects. No annotations are provided to supplement this.

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 and well-structured: it starts with a single-sentence purpose, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is complete. It specifies what input is expected, what the tool does, and what the output format is. There are no ambiguous points or missing essential details for a basic spelling-check function.

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 description adds significant meaning to the sole parameter, explaining that 'text' is 'the text to check for spelling errors'. Since the schema provides no description for the parameter, this fills the gap completely. It also describes the output structure.

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 function with specific verbs ('Identify', 'suggest') and a clear resource ('misspelled words'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling text-processing tools, though the name itself strongly implies a unique purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., analyze_text, extract_keywords). The description lacks any context for when spelling checking would be preferred over other text analysis operations.

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