Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the transformation behavior but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., handling of special characters, whitespace, or locale effects), error conditions, or output format specifics. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple transformation tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address parameter meanings, behavioral nuances, or output details, leaving significant gaps for a tool with multiple optional inputs.

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 but doesn't mention any parameters. It ignores 3 optional parameters (delimiter, locale, mergeAmbiguousCharacters) and provides no context beyond the required 'text' parameter. This leaves most parameters undocumented and unclear in purpose.

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 'Convert text to CONSTANT_CASE' clearly states the verb ('Convert') and resource ('text') with specific output format ('CONSTANT_CASE'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like case_to_camel, case_to_snake, etc., by specifying the exact case transformation target.

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 usage for converting text to constant case, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., case_to_snake for snake_case) or any prerequisites. Context is implied by the tool name and sibling list, but no explicit when/when-not statements are included.

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