from_aksara

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the conversion and special cases handled, but does not disclose error handling, input validation, or side effects. For a conversion tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 simple input schema (one string parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the transformation and lists supported script features. It does not discuss return format or edge cases, but overall is complete enough for a straightforward conversion.

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 100% (parameter 'text' described as 'Aksara Jawa text to decode to Latin script'). The description adds value beyond the schema by listing specific script features handled, enhancing the agent's understanding of valid inputs.

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 converts Aksara Jawa to Latin-script Javanese, specifying the input and output scripts. It lists specific features handled (murda, retroflex, cakra, etc.), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'to_aksara' which performs the reverse operation.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to decode Aksara Jawa to Latin) and the sibling tool name provides context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The purpose is clear enough for correct selection.

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