polish_prose

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: never alters citations/numbers/claims, not an evasion tool, default returns guidelines, LLM mode needs a key and falls back. Could mention output format but output schema exists.

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?

Two efficient sentences convey all core information without waste. Essential caveats are front-loaded (no fact alteration, not evasion) followed by behavior options.

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?

Core behavior is covered, and output schema exists. However, no details about the format or content of the returned guidelines, or limitations on content length/type, leaving minor gaps for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description only explains use_llm and its fallback. Remaining parameters (model, provider, content) are not described beyond their schema defaults, leaving the agent to infer meanings.

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's purpose: to improve prose style and readability of a fact-checked draft without altering facts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from AI-detector evasion tools and presence of sibling tools confirm no direct polish alternative exists.

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 provides when to use (after fact-checking), default behavior (returns guidelines), and optional LLM rewrite with prerequisite. It implies not for raw drafts but lacks explicit exclusion for non-readability tasks.

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