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. While 'trim whitespace' implies a read-only transformation, the description doesn't specify whether this modifies the original text or returns a new string, what happens with null/empty input, or any performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 four words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by communicating the essential action and target. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the optional 'trim_type' parameter, provide examples of input/output behavior, or clarify edge cases. For a text manipulation tool among many alternatives, more context about trimming behavior and parameter usage would help the agent use it correctly.

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 both parameters, the description 'Trim whitespace from text' provides minimal parameter guidance. It hints at the 'text' parameter but doesn't explain the 'trim_type' parameter at all. The description doesn't clarify what trimming options exist (e.g., leading, trailing, or both), what the default behavior is, or what values 'trim_type' accepts. This 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 'Trim whitespace from text' clearly states the verb ('trim') and resource ('whitespace from text'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like case conversion or encoding tools by focusing on whitespace removal rather than text transformation or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (though none exist 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. It doesn't mention what types of whitespace are trimmed, whether it's for cleaning user input, preparing data for processing, or other use cases. With many sibling text manipulation tools available, the lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.

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