Agent Farm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation ('writes directly to disk'), handles large content, bypasses the LLM, and returns status/bytes. It doesn't cover permissions or error details, but gives substantial context.

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 front-loaded with purpose and guidelines, uses bullet-like clarity for parameters and returns, and every sentence adds value without waste. It's appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and returns. It could detail error cases or path requirements, but covers core aspects well for a write tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: 'path: File path to write to' and 'content: Content to write (any length)', clarifying usage beyond schema types. It doesn't specify path format or content constraints.

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 specific action ('Direct file write'), resource ('file'), and scope ('NO LLM involved', 'Use for large content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'chunked_write' by emphasizing direct disk writing and handling large content.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Use for large content', 'Bugs can't reliably echo content >300 chars through the LLM') and when not to use ('NO LLM involved'), with clear context for bypassing model limitations.

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