vocametrix_check_syntax

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It explains what the tool returns (score, issues, corrected text, readability) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The output description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality and output types. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines action and output, second sentence provides usage context. No redundant or vague phrases.

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 no output schema, the description covers key return elements (score, issue breakdown, corrected text, readability statistics) and constraints (max length). It also ties to a domain (speech-language assessments). Slight gap: no mention of error handling or supported locales beyond the locale parameter. Still sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not explicitly map parameters to their roles (e.g., how locale affects analysis). It adds marginal value beyond schema descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze text') and noun ('grammar and syntax errors'), clearly distinguishes the tool from voice/pronunciation siblings by focusing on text analysis. It also specifies the output (severity classification, score, breakdown, corrected text, readability stats) and a concrete use case (speech-language assessments).

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 states it is 'useful for evaluating written language samples in speech-language assessments,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it (e.g., non-text inputs) or suggest alternative tools for other needs, so it misses the highest bar.

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