Text-Toolkit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Format and beautify XML' implies a transformation operation but doesn't specify whether this is read-only, what happens with malformed XML, whether the operation is reversible, or any performance characteristics. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a transformation tool.

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 at just 3 words. Every word earns its place: 'Format' and 'beautify' describe the action, 'XML' specifies the target. There's zero waste or redundancy in this minimal description.

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 transformation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'beautified' means, what the output looks like, how errors are handled, or provide any parameter guidance. The description leaves too many open questions 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (1 required), the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't mention the 'text' parameter (required XML input) or 'indent_size' parameter (optional formatting control). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 purpose: 'Format and beautify XML' specifies the verb (format/beautify) and resource (XML). It distinguishes from siblings like format_html and format_json by specifying XML, but doesn't explain how it differs from other formatting tools beyond the target format.

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 when XML formatting is needed, what constitutes 'beautified' XML, or how this differs from similar tools like format_html or format_json. No context about appropriate use cases is provided.

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