Code Buddy

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 write action but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether it overwrites existing files, creates new files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

For a file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or behavioral nuances (e.g., overwriting vs. appending). Given the mutation nature and lack of structured data, more context is needed for safe and effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('filepath' and 'content'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as file format details or path resolution rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('writes content') and target ('to a text file at the specified path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_file' or 'create_directory', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

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 like 'edit_file', 'create_directory', or 'copy_file'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions) or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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