Text-Transformer

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 states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (with 'includeSpaces' unexplained), the description is insufficient for a tool with two parameters. It covers the basic purpose but fails to provide necessary context for effective use, such as output details or parameter semantics.

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 description mentions 'text' as the input but doesn't explain the 'includeSpaces' parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying the main parameter ('text') but leaves 'includeSpaces' undocumented, resulting in a baseline score.

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 with a specific verb ('count') and resource ('characters in text'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'countWords' or 'isPalindrome' which also analyze text, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'countWords' and 'isPalindrome' that also process text, the description lacks any context about when character counting is appropriate versus word counting or palindrome checking, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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