Normalize fragmented human input

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it returns the number of fragments detected and the joined version. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them, adding no contradiction.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and ending with a usage guideline. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the purpose, usage, and return value (fragments count and joined version) sufficiently. The annotations and schema cover the rest.

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 only parameter 'text' has a description in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 it normalizes fragmented text into coherent prose, specifying what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'rewrite', which could be seen as similar. The verb 'normalize' and resource 'fragmented human input' are clear.

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 explicitly says 'Use when a user types stream-of-consciousness or fragmented input,' providing a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives to the sibling tools, but the guidance is adequate for this tool.

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