replaceall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behaviors: case sensitivity and lack of RegEx support. However, it does not describe return value, whether the original string is mutated, or behavior with edge cases like empty substrings or overlapping matches, leaving gaps for a transformation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence is incomplete, ending with 'see the "'. This structural flaw prevents the pointer to alternatives from being actionable, though the overal size is appropriate.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide parameter details despite the tool obviously needing them (the schema is empty). The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without knowing parameter names or types, and the description also omits return value information. For a simple tool this is incomplete.

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 schema defines zero parameters, and the description mentions 'substring' and 'string' conceptually, giving meaning to what the tool operates on. Since there are no actual schema parameters to annotate, the baseline per rubric is 4, and the description adds sufficient conceptual 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 tool finds and replaces all occurrences of a substring in a string, with explicit mention of case sensitivity and no RegEx support, distinguishing it from siblings like regex and regexreplace. However, the sentence is cut off mid-phrase, slightly detracting from completeness, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: it notes the operation is case sensitive and does not accept RegEx, and directs users to another tool for RegEx and case-sensitivity control. This gives clear when-to-use vs alternative context, though the truncated reference weakens the explicitness.

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