reverse_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must convey side effects and safety. It states only the transformation and gives no explicit statement that the operation is pure, read-only, or free of side effects. Although reversing a string is inherently non-destructive, the lack of explicit disclosure lowers the score.

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 exceptionally concise, using only the essential words to convey the operation and parameter. There is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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 adequate: it states the function, the input, and the output. It does not discuss edge cases or performance, but for a straightforward string utility this is unlikely to cause confusion. The context provided by the sibling tools (all text-analysis functions) reinforces that this is a basic utility, so no additional context is required.

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 parameter 'text' is described as 'The input text', which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type and name. The description does not clarify expectations (e.g., whether the input must be non-empty, how whitespace is handled). However, since the parameter's meaning is essentially self-evident and the schema fully specifies the type, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Reverse') and the object ('a string'), and identifies the input parameter 'text'. It is immediately obvious what the tool does, though it lacks any nuance about the exact scope (e.g., whether it reverses Unicode graphemes or code units).

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. While the sibling tools are all text-analysis functions, none of them perform string reversal, so the absence of comparative guidance is less critical, but the description still gives no indication of limitations or edge cases (e.g., empty strings, multi-byte characters).

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