calculate_annotation_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the technical behavior (UTF-16 position calculation differing from Python indexes), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what the return value/offset semantics are beyond the name, and there's an output schema available which likely covers the return shape. The emoji caveat is helpful behavioral detail.

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 and front-loads the core purpose in the first line. The technical explanation in the second sentence earns its place. It's efficient and focused, though the explicit 'Use this tool for...' guidance adds value without bloating length.

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 tool has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and the technical reason for the tool's existence. It explains the UTF-16 vs Python indexing difference which is the key constraint. It doesn't describe edge cases (multiple markers, occurrence semantics) but the output schema and narrow scope make this reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'text' and 'marker' parameters implicitly through context (text inside a recipe step, marker for TTS/MODE/etc.), but doesn't explicitly document each parameter. The 'occurrence' parameter (default 1) is not mentioned at all. With 3 parameters at 0% coverage, the description should do more to explain each parameter's meaning.

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 this tool calculates Cookidoo's offset and length for text markers (TTS, MODE, INGREDIENT, VOLUME) inside recipe steps. It explains the technical why (JavaScript UTF-16 vs Python string indexes with emoji) and names the specific verb+resource. The sibling context confirms this is a unique utility distinct from recipe retrieval and mutation tools.

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 this tool for every TTS, MODE, INGREDIENT, and VOLUME annotation,' which is clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is narrow enough that this is largely implicit. Could add a note about when a plain Python index would suffice, but the guidance is strong.

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