text_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core transformations, but does not mention the return format, edge-case behavior, or any side effects. For a deterministic text formatter, this is moderately transparent but leaves gaps.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key operations without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has a simple schema and no output schema, so the description is responsible for suggesting the return value and usage context. It lists main functions but does not explicitly state that it returns the formatted text or any limitations. Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 67%, with descriptions for indent and merge_lines, but none for text. The tool description indirectly explains the purpose of indent and merge_lines via the operations it lists, but it does not explicitly describe each parameter or clarify the text input beyond calling it an article. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing text parameter description.

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 '排版' (formatting) and resource '文章' (articles), explicitly listing the operations: first-line indent, paragraph merging, and cleaning blank lines/spaces. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_filter or text_replace, which target different transformations.

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 implies usage for automatically formatting Chinese articles, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is only implicit.

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