Check text for writing style issues

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), the description adds that the tool is read-only, stateless, never stores text, returns a plain-text report with line/column details, and has a character limit error.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains concise and front-loads the main purpose.

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 complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers output format, error conditions, sibling usage, and behavioral traits. No obvious gaps.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minor context (character limit, output format) but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of schema-defined parameters like config or format.

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 analyzes text for specific writing style issues, listing them explicitly. It also differentiates from sibling tools by specifying when to use check_text vs check_file and mentions follow-up with fix_duplicates.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for text in conversation, use check_file for files, and follow up with fix_duplicates for auto-removal. Also notes that texts over 100k chars return an error.

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