truncate_text

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

The description explains the core behavior: truncation with optional ellipsis and default length. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., text shorter than length) or any side effects. Without annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, earning its place efficiently.

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?

The description covers the main functionality but does not mention return value. Since an output schema exists (as per context), the description does not need to explain return values, but it could still hint at what to expect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing parameters with brief explanations ('text — Text to truncate.'). This compensates for the schema gap but is minimal and does not elaborate on parameter constraints.

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 verb 'Truncate' and the resource 'text', specifying the behavior with length and ellipsis options. It distinguishes itself from sibling text manipulation tools like 'capitalize_text' or 'reverse_text' by its specific truncation function.

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 other text tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or context like typical use cases.

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