Text-Toolkit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('validate') but doesn't explain what validation entails (e.g., format checks, version support), what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns boolean, error message), or any constraints (e.g., rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 with a single, front-loaded sentence ('Validate a UUID') that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on validation criteria, return values, or error handling, which are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable invocation.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying a 'uuid' input, which is already obvious from the schema's property name. This meets the baseline for minimal value when schema coverage is low but doesn't compensate meaningfully.

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 'Validate a UUID' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('UUID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings that might also validate UUIDs in different ways or contexts, which is a minor gap in specificity.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a UUID string to validate, or compare it to sibling tools like 'generate_uuid' for creating UUIDs, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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