expand_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two useful behavioral facts that this is a pure string transform and that values come from the project's variable store, but it is silent on what happens when a referenced variable is undefined or malformed.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose, then a compact Args block. The parameter line is mildly redundant with the first sentence but earns its place by giving the ${VAR} format.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape is already covered, and the tool takes one simple parameter. The description is nearly complete for such a small tool; only the undefined-variable/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates by documenting the expected content ('Text possibly containing ${VAR} references'), telling the agent the input format beyond the bare string type.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Expand ${...} text variables in a string') and the data source ('the project's values'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the sibling get_text_variables/set_text_variable tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: it is the tool that turns stored variables into resolved text, versus get_text_variables (list) and set_text_variable (define). However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated, so the agent must infer the routing.

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