sort_lines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: case-insensitivity, locale-aware collation, natural sorting, deduplication, line trimming, and empty-line removal. It also clarifies the ordering modes. It does not mention return format or error handling, but for a pure sort operation these are less critical, so the description provides reasonable transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Each feature is listed compactly without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and every clause adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavior and options. It does not explain the exact return value, but for a sort tool the result is obvious (the sorted text). The sibling context shows this is a text utility, and the description sufficiently distinguishes it. A small deduction for not addressing edge cases like empty input or default behavior, but the defaults are in the 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 0%, so the description must illuminate the parameters. It does so effectively: 'asc/desc' maps to order, 'case-insensitive' to case_sensitive, 'locale-aware' to locale, 'natural-sort' to natural, 'dedupe' to dedupe, 'line-trim' to trim_lines, and 'empty-line drop' to drop_empty. It does not explicitly describe the 'text' parameter, but that is self-evident. Overall, it adds meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sort lines of text.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like count_lines or case_convert. The feature list (asc/desc, natural-sort, dedupe, etc.) further clarifies its scope.

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?

The description implies usage for sorting text lines and enumerates supported options, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no confusion arises. The guidance is implicit rather than stated, warranting a slight deduction from 5.

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