Parse TXT File

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

The description adds only the output detail of 'text chunks' beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). It does not disclose potential side effects, whether content is persisted, size limits, or return structure. Since there is no output schema, the burden on the description is higher, and this minimal statement is insufficient for full behavioral 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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately sized for the tool's core function, despite lacking additional context.

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 has 10 parameters (including optional S3 and chunking options) and no output schema, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain how the input should be provided (base64 vs. S3), what the chunking defaults are, or what the return value looks like. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for the tool is underdeveloped.

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% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the high-level operation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics comprehensively.

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 'Parse a plain-text file into text chunks' clearly states the tool's verb ('parse'), resource ('plain-text file'), and outcome ('text chunks'). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like lyzr_parse_text or lyzr_parse_pdf, which have similar 'parse' actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., base64 encoding, S3 source), exclusions, or scenarios where other parsers would be more appropriate. With sibling tools like lyzr_parse_text, lyzr_parse_pdf, and lyzr_parse_docx, this lack of differentiation is a clear gap.

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