passive_voice

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions detection and suggestion but omits output format, language support, or performance traits. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to clarify behavior.

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 concise with no wasted words. It includes a parameter listing in a clear format. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not differentiate from many similar siblings, nor does it explain the output schema content (e.g., whether it returns a score, list, or suggestions).

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 description adds 'Text to analyze for passive voice' to the parameter, which is slightly informative but largely redundant with the tool's purpose. Given 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., accepted formats) would be beneficial.

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 detects passive voice and suggests active alternatives. However, among many text analysis siblings, it does not distinguish itself explicitly, e.g., from grammar or proofread tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternative text analysis tools like grammar, proofread, or other stylistic checkers. The description only states the function.

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