fabric_improve_writing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'improve writing quality and clarity' without explaining how the tool processes input, whether it returns the improved text, or if it requires any additional context. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and output.

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, clearly worded sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be expanded with usage guidance without becoming overly verbose, so it misses a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is too terse to be fully complete. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., the improved text) or when to use it relative to siblings. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter 'input' with description 'The input text to process'. The tool description adds the context that this input is writing to be improved, which provides slight extra meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no further parameter detail is needed.

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 'Improve writing quality and clarity' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('improve') and resource ('writing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that analyze, summarize, or extract content. However, it lacks specificity about the type of improvement (grammar, style, etc.), keeping it slightly generic.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like 'use this to polish a draft' or exclude cases like summarizing. There is no comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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