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 what the tool does without any information on performance, error handling, input constraints, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema.

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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like parameter semantics and behavioral transparency.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for these gaps by explaining input expectations, output format, or behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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%, and the description doesn't mention the 'text' parameter at all. It fails to explain what the input should contain (e.g., HTML-encoded strings) or provide examples, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 'Decode HTML entities' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('decode') and resource ('HTML entities'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'encode_html', which performs the inverse operation, though the distinction is logically implied.

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. It doesn't mention scenarios like processing web content or cleaning text, nor does it reference the sibling 'encode_html' for reverse operations. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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