repeated_words

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether matching is case-sensitive, whether repeated words must be consecutive, or what the output format is. This lack of detail hinders correct usage.

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 very concise, consisting of one sentence and a parameter line. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices important details. The structure is straightforward but could benefit from additional information.

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 simplicity of the tool (one string parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description could still be more informative. It lacks details on what constitutes 'repeated words' and how results are presented, making it incomplete for confident use.

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. The description adds 'Text to find repeated words in.' which provides minimal context but still does not clarify constraints like case sensitivity or word boundaries. It adds little value beyond the parameter name.

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 states 'Find repeated or duplicated words in text.' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates the tool's function, though it does not differentiate from siblings like 'word_frequency' or 'unique_words'.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, 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.