Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion action without details on output format, error handling, or side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient, as it doesn't explain how parameters like 'delimiter' or 'locale' affect behavior.

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 extremely concise—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter roles, or output format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly. The conciseness doesn't compensate for these missing details.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the required 'text' field. It doesn't explain what 'delimiter,' 'locale,' or 'mergeAmbiguousCharacters' do, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage and leaving key semantics unclear.

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 function: 'Convert text to Sentence case.' It specifies the verb ('Convert') and resource ('text'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'case_to_capital' or 'case_to_pascal,' which are similar case-conversion tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for case conversion (e.g., 'case_to_camel,' 'case_to_snake'), there is no indication of what 'Sentence case' means or when it's preferred over other formats. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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