get_ascii_art

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reliably conveys a read/search operation and that the art text is returned, but it does not disclose behavior for edge cases such as no match, multiple matches, or case sensitivity. The core behavior is communicated, but not deeply.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that uses an active verb and provides both search scope and result. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with one parameter, no nested objects, and a clear text return, the description is largely complete. It states both what is being searched and what is returned. It could mention empty/error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool limits the need.

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 only describes 'query' as a string with minLength 1; it gives no semantic meaning. The description compensates by explaining that the query is matched against 'nombre or aliases', which effectively defines the parameter's purpose. It could add more nuance about matching, but it is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 'search', the resource 'ASCII/Unicode art entry', and the lookup criteria 'by nombre or aliases'. This makes it distinct from random_ascii and list_categories, though the overlap with sibling search_ascii is not fully clarified.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description implies it is for finding an entry by known name/alias, but it does not mention exclusions or direct the agent to search_ascii for broader text search.

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