reading_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool estimates reading time but does not disclose the output format, units (e.g., minutes, seconds), or whether it handles edge cases like empty text. This is minimal transparency for a simple computation tool.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every part is informative without redundancy.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the essential functionality and parameters. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required. The description could mention the unit of the result (likely minutes) for completeness, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It clearly explains 'text' as the content to estimate and 'wpm' as the reading speed with a default. This adds necessary context beyond the schema property names alone.

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 action ('estimate') and the resource ('reading time for text') with the specific parameter 'at a given words-per-minute rate'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'speaking_time' which deals with speech, and other text analysis 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of 'speaking_time' and other text analysis tools, the description does not mention when to prefer reading_time or when not to use it.

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