rmx_monospace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it 'intelligently distributes width change between outline scaling and spacing adjustment' and requires 2+ masters. It does not explicitly mention side effects, reversibility, or failure behavior, but the main mutation behavior and a key precondition are clearly communicated.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses compact, purposeful sections for args and an example. No sentence is wasted, and the required prerequisite is included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameter meanings, an example, and the 2+ masters prerequisite. It could be more complete by describing return values or error conditions, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential and does explain all five parameters meaningfully, including defaults and ranges. The example is also helpful, but it introduces a consistency issue by using 'monoWidth' while the schema and Args list use 'mono_width', which could mislead the agent.

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?

States a specific action ('Adjust a glyph to a fixed width') and names the mechanism ('RMX Monospacer'), which clearly conveys the primary purpose. The second sentence about distributing width change between outline scaling and spacing helps differentiate it from simpler width-setting tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like set_glyph_width.

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?

Provides a useful example and a clear prerequisite ('Requires 2+ masters'), which implies when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as set_glyph_width or rmx_scale, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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