Convert plain text into Braille Unicode dots or decode Braille characters back into readable text for accessibility and encoding workflows.
Convert text to Braille Unicode dots or decode Braille back to text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text or Braille characters to convert. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description isn't carrying that load. However, it omits genuinely useful behavior: which Unicode range is produced (U+2800–U+28FF), how unknown/unmappable characters are treated, and whether Grade 1 or Grade 2 braille is emitted. Those are material for a converter with no output schema.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 one-parameter, read-only utility with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is that an agent cannot predict the return format or the failure mode for non-Braille/non-ASCII input.
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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description implies bidirectional auto-detection ('or decode Braille back to text') but never says how direction is determined or whether mixed input is rejected – the one semantic question an agent actually has here.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ("Convert text to Braille Unicode dots") and covers both directions, including the decode case. An agent can tell exactly what operation this performs and that no sibling tool (morse_convert, rot13_convert, charcodes_convert) covers Braille.
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?
Usage is only implied by the description – there is no statement about when to reach for this versus other encoding tools, no note on braille grade (contracted vs uncontracted), and no guidance on inputs the converter cannot handle. The agent is left to infer fitness for purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.