Parse Text

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning the tool may have side effects, but the description does not clarify what side effects occur or whether the chunks are simply returned. It adds only the 'no knowledge base required' qualifier, which is a prerequisite hint rather than a behavioral disclosure. Output structure and state changes are unaddressed.

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 primary action and outcome, and efficiently communicates that no knowledge base is required. No redundant or verbose 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?

Although the schema fully documents parameters, there is no output schema and the description fails to specify the return structure or any side effects. An agent selecting this tool would know it parses text but not whether the result is a list, string, or objects, nor whether it writes anything. Given the annotations leave side effects ambiguous (readOnlyHint=false), this is a notable gap.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight; 'raw text' aligns with the 'text' parameter but does not elaborate on chunk_size, extra_info, or extra_fields. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Parse'), resource ('raw text'), and outcome ('into chunks'), and adds a discriminative qualifier ('no knowledge base required') that distinguishes it from KB-based operations. Among sibling parse tools for files and websites, 'raw text' implies a direct text input, making the purpose 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?

Usage guidance is only implied via the qualifier 'no knowledge base required', which suggests use for one-off or lightweight parsing without needing a KB. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like lyzr_parse_txt or lyzr_kb_train_text, nor does it state when not to use it, so the guidance remains suggestive rather than explicit.

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