Code Buddy

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. While it implies a mutation operation ('replace'), it doesn't address critical aspects like whether changes are saved automatically, if there's undo capability, permission requirements, or error handling for non-existent files. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies files.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 file mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is atomic, or what side effects might occur. Given the complexity of modifying files and the lack of structured safety information, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 verb ('find and replace') and resource ('text in a single file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_replace_all' or 'edit_file', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_replace_all' (which likely handles multiple files) or 'edit_file' (which might offer more general editing capabilities). The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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