text_fullwidth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail about Chinese punctuation being included in the conversion ('含中文标点：。、《》等'), but it does not disclose other behaviors such as reversibility, handling of unsupported characters, or exact character set scope, leaving some 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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then quickly details the two actions. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple conversion tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential information: the purpose, the two modes, and the scope of punctuation handling. It does not describe the return value, but that is generally implied for such a tool. The description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention that the converted text is returned.

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 must compensate. It fully explains the 'action' enum values ('to_full=半角转全角；to_half=全角转半角') and the 'text' parameter is self-evident as the input string. This adequately compensates for the bare schema, though the 'text' parameter could benefit from additional constraints like length or encoding.

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 clearly states the tool's function as '全角/半角互转' (full-width/half-width conversion), which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this particular transformation, and the action explanations further clarify the two conversion directions.

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 by explaining the two actions (to_full and to_half), letting the user infer when to use each. However, it does not explicitly provide usage scenarios or mention alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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