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. 'Convert text to snake_case' implies a transformation operation but reveals nothing about error handling, performance characteristics, locale sensitivity (despite a locale parameter), or what happens with special characters. The description doesn't address the behavioral implications of the four parameters.

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 perfectly concise at just 4 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and delivers maximum information density with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what snake_case transformation entails, how parameters affect the conversion, what the output looks like, or edge cases. The context demands more explanation than provided.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'text' implicitly but doesn't explain the purpose of 'delimiter', 'locale', or 'mergeAmbiguousCharacters' parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's obvious from the tool name.

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 verb 'convert' and the resource 'text to snake_case', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'case_to_camel' by specifying the target case format, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all case conversion tools in the sibling list.

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 many sibling tools for case conversion (camel, kebab, pascal, etc.), there's no indication of when snake_case is appropriate or when to choose this over other formatting tools like encode/decode or regex operations.

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