normalize_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the normalization forms and parameters but does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid form input), performance, or side effects. The behavior is straightforward, so it is minimally adequate. The description adds some value by listing allowed forms but lacks depth.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a list of parameters with clear labeling. No extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core operation and parameters adequately. It does not include examples or edge cases, but for a straightforward normalization tool, it is nearly complete. The low parameter count and high description coverage compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 0% parameter description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It clearly explains both parameters: 'text' as 'Text to normalize' and 'form' with default and allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names and types, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Normalize Unicode text to NFC, NFD, NFKC, or NFKD form.' The verb 'normalize' and specific resource 'Unicode text' are precise. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools that also transform text (e.g., 'remove_accents', 'convert_case'), which prevents a score of 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling text manipulation tools, explicit context such as 'Use when you need canonical Unicode normalization for comparison or storage' would be helpful. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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