sort_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Sort text' implies a modifying operation, the description does not state whether it mutates the document directly, how selection versus whole-document sorting is determined, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects may occur. This leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a minimal Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler. The structure is clean and easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and a free-form action_params parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the tool chooses between sorting the selection versus the entire document, nor does it enumerate or hint at valid HSort parameters. While an output schema exists, the missing behavioral and parameter details leave an agent under-equipped to invoke this tool correctly in varied contexts.

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 compensate for the schema's lack of explanations. It does add meaning by identifying doc_id as 'Document ID from open_document' and action_params as 'Optional HSort parameter overrides.' However, it stops short of describing what valid HSort parameters are, which is a significant gap for an open-ended action_params object.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Sort text in selection or document.' It distinguishes itself from sibling text-manipulation tools like search_text, replace_text, and insert_text because sorting is a unique action. The scope (selection or document) is also mentioned, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that the tool sorts text either in the current selection or in the document, so an agent can infer when to invoke it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when-not-to-use cases, but there is no direct sibling sort tool, so the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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