Analyze text readability using Flesch-Kincaid grade level and reading ease scores to assess how difficult a passage is to read.
Analyze text readability with Flesch-Kincaid grade and reading ease scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to analyze for readability. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a pure computation (analyze) but does not state whether it is read-only, deterministic, or what the output structure looks like. Minimal behavioral context for a no-annotation tool.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action and the returned metrics front-loaded. No waste, though also no additional useful content.
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 one-param computation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names what is computed but omits output format and the metric scale/interpretation. Could do more given the absence of both annotations and output schema.
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 100% with a single required 'text' parameter that the schema already documents. The description names no syntax, format, or limitations beyond 'text', so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (text readability) and names the metrics returned (Flesch-Kincaid grade and reading ease). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like readability_score or wordfreq_analyse, though a sibling readability_score exists with no stated differentiation.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives. Notably a sibling named readability_score exists, and the description does nothing to route the agent between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.