Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• text_file__find_span_between_boundariesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it opens the file and resolves BOM/codepage, and returns the inner slice or null. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, nor any side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. Adequate but incomplete.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, and the token-efficiency remark could be integrated more tightly. Nearly efficient but not perfect.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description does not specify the return type (e.g., string of the inner slice) or the structure of 'compact structured results'. With no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing. It also fails to mention error cases like file not found or invalid boundaries. Missing critical context for a complex tool with nested parameters.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds little beyond reiterating the boundary_span concept and return value, which does not compensate for the schema's thoroughness. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Finds content between matching boundary markers' and the resource 'text file', and specifies it returns the inner slice or null. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_span_boundaries' or 'find_span_with_boundaries', which could have overlapping functionality.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions 'Token-efficient' and 'reduces unnecessary context', hinting at when to use, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling text_file tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• text_file__patch_spans_by_boundary_patternsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the file is opened with BOM/codepage resolution, modifications are applied, and the file is saved with original encoding. However, it does not describe return value format, error conditions, or behavior on conflicting replacements. The mention of 'compact structured results' is vague.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary detail. However, the second sentence mixes token-efficiency and output description, which could be better structured. Overall, it is efficient but slightly unfocused.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (nested schema, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow but lacks clarification on return values. It mentions 'returns compact structured results' but does not specify what those are. It omits explanation of the count parameter's behavior (max passes, negative repeat), which is in the schema but important context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as hinting at single versus ordered list replacements (boundary_span+text vs patch). The token-efficiency note is peripheral. No additional meaning is provided for parameters like count or source_file_path.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states that the tool opens a file, applies one or more boundary-span replacements, and writes the modified content back. The verb 'applies replacement' and resource 'boundary span' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like replace_span_with_boundaries or replace_text, which may cause confusion.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 its siblings. The description mentions 'token-efficient' and 'compact structured results' but does not explain when this tool is preferable over other replacement tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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

• text_file__find_span_with_boundariesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses file opening, BOM/codepage handling, return behavior (full slice or null), and token-efficiency. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. For a read operation, basic safety is implied but not explicit.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences, each adding value. First sentence states the core action, second explains output, third highlights efficiency. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (nested objects, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and return value. However, it omits mention of optional parameters (start, stop, start_r, weak_boundaries) that affect search range and matching. Schema provides details, but description could be more complete by summarizing these options.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. It mentions 'boundary markers' generally, but does not elaborate on the boundary_span parameter or optional offset parameters, which are already detailed in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states that the tool opens a text file, resolves BOM/codepage, finds content with boundary markers, and returns the full slice or null. It also mentions token-efficiency. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_span_between_boundaries' or 'find_span_boundaries', which may have similar purposes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_text, read_slice). The description mentions 'token-efficient' but does not specify scenarios or compare with siblings. The presence of many sibling tools without usage context is a gap.

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

• text_file__replace_span_with_boundariesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic BOM/codepage resolution and saving with original encoding. However, it omits details about failure modes, what happens on no match, or write permissions (e.g., whether file is modified in place). Adequate but not thorough.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with main action. No redundant phrasing. The 'token-efficient' remark adds marginal value but does not detract. Efficient and structured for quick scanning.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers encoding handling and replacement logic, but lacks return value description (no output schema). It doesn't clarify behavior on no match or multiple matches. For a mutation tool with nested parameter types, more completeness (e.g., mention of idempotency) would be beneficial.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond schema. It reiterates boundary markers but doesn't explain parameter nuances like count defaults or boundary_span structure beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool opens a text file, replaces content between boundary markers, and saves with original encoding. It specifies the verb 'replaces' and the resource 'text file', and distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_text (exact string) and replace_slice (line range) by focusing on boundary markers.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'token-efficient' but doesn't contrast with other replace tools or provide when-not criteria. The sibling list includes many similar replace tools, making usage context unclear.

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

• text_file__find_span_boundariesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses BOM and codepage handling and token efficiency, but does not specify return format ('slices'), error conditions (e.g., missing boundaries), or read-only nature. Some key behavioral details are missing.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is only three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds meaningful information. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (nested objects, 6 parameters, multiple sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format or how this tool differs from closely related siblings. More context is needed for full understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all parameters, including nested objects and shorthands. The description adds value beyond the schema only for the overall behavior (BOM/codepage, token efficiency), not for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it opens a text file, finds matching left/right boundary markers, and returns their slices. It uses a specific verb ('finds') and resource ('boundary markers'), and the boundary span concept is distinct from sibling tools, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The mention of 'Token-efficient: targets specific file content or returns compact structured results' implies a use case to avoid loading the full file, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like find_span_between_boundaries or find_span_with_boundaries.

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

• text_file__read_sliceA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It covers BOM/codepage resolution and slice constraints, but omits important traits such as what is returned, error handling (e.g., missing file, encoding issues), and whether the operation is purely read-only. The lack of output schema further reduces transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences long, each contributing useful information: purpose, slice format caution, and token efficiency. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating return value).

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value format, behavior on errors, or how to choose this tool over line-based siblings. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains the slice format, warns against step 0, and notes token-efficiency. This helps the agent construct valid parameters effectively.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly specifies the action ('read any section'), the resource ('text file'), and the mechanism ('Python-style slicing'). It distinguishes from siblings like text_file__read_content_by_line_range which operate on line ranges, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions token-efficiency and targets specific content, implying use for targeted reads. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., line-based reading from siblings), nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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

• text_file__replace_span_between_boundariesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses encoding handling (BOM and codepage resolution) and preservation of boundary markers. However, it omits details on error behavior (e.g., boundaries not found), atomicity, or side effects like file locking. This is moderate transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but includes useful details about encoding and token efficiency. A slight reduction in redundant phrasing could improve it, but it is well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complex input schema (nested boundary_span), 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value (e.g., success status, modified file path), which is essential since no output schema exists. It also lacks guidance on what happens if boundaries are not found.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that boundaries are preserved but does not clarify the count parameter's semantics or the boundary_span structure. No significant value added.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool opens a file, resolves encoding, replaces content between boundary markers while preserving them, and saves with original encoding. It specifies the verb 'replace' and the resource 'content between matching boundary markers', and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing boundary preservation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions token-efficiency for targeting specific content, but does not explicitly compare to siblings like replace_text or replace_slice. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• text_file__expand_slice_to_linesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses BOM/codepage resolution, line expansion behavior, and token-efficiency, adding significant context beyond the schema. No contradictory annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with core action, then parameter usage, then efficiency note. No redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  While the description covers main actions, it does not specify the return format for the two slices, which is important given the lack of an output schema. Edge cases and errors are not addressed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema fully documents both parameters, but the description adds valuable usage guidance for the 'place' object, explaining Python slice semantics and prohibiting step=0.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool opens a text file, resolves BOM/codepage, expands a character slice to cover complete lines, and returns both expanded slices. This is specific and distinct from siblings like 'read_slice' or 'read_content_by_line_range'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., read_slice, read_content_by_line_range). It focuses on parameter usage but lacks usage context or exclusion criteria.

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

• text_file__file_lines_numA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic BOM and codepage resolution and specifies that the return is a line count. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., file not found, permission issues) or behavior for binary files. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds context on token efficiency, which is relevant but slightly vague. No unnecessary words; structure is efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the key action, encoding handling, and return value. However, it lacks details on error scenarios and performance characteristics (e.g., large files).

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about the parameter 'source_file_path' beyond what the schema provides. The mention of BOM/codepage is about tool behavior, not the parameter itself.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool opens a text file, resolves BOM and codepage, and returns the line count. The verb 'Opens' and resource 'text file' with specific outcome 'number of lines' makes the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from siblings that manipulate or read content.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description hints at token efficiency ('targets specific file content or returns compact structured results'), implying use when only line count is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'text_file__file_content_length' or 'text_file__read_content_by_line_range'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• text_file__find_textA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses file opening, BOM/codepage handling, search behavior, and return value (slice or null). However, it does not mention that the file must be in an allowed directory (stated in schema but not description) or discuss potential side effects or performance characteristics beyond token-efficiency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences: first clearly states the primary action, second adds token-efficiency context. Every word is informative, no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return value (slice or null). It covers file opening, search modes, offsets, and efficiency. However, for a tool with 11 parameters, it could briefly mention the optional constraints like forbidden characters and normalization options (though those are in schema). Overall, sufficient for selecting and invoking.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, and the main description adds value by explaining automatic BOM/codepage resolution, first/last match options, search modes (text, word, dev_word), start/stop offsets, and return type. This goes beyond the schema, which lists parameters but not the overall behavior and result.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool opens a text file, resolves BOM/codepage, and finds text matches (first/last, exact/word/identifier) with optional offsets. It distinguishes itself from sibling find/span tools by focusing on exact text search.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description says 'Token-efficient: targets specific file content or returns compact structured results to reduce unnecessary context,' implying when to use it to avoid full file reads. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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

• text_file__list_allowed_directoriesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description explains basic behavior (returns allowed directories) but omits whether the list is static or dynamic, or any authorization implications. Acceptable for a simple query tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences: first states purpose, second discusses token-efficiency which is irrelevant since this tool has no input. Could be more concise by removing the second sentence.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Does not describe the output format (e.g., array of strings, path format) which would help the agent use the results. Token-efficiency mention is vague and not helpful. Given no output schema, more detail is warranted.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description does not need to add param info, and baseline 4 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool returns allowed filesystem directories, differentiating it from sibling tools that operate on file content.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states that file paths for other tools must be within these directories, guiding the agent to use this tool first to discover allowable paths. Could be improved by explicitly noting when not to use.

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

• text_file__read_content_by_line_rangeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic BOM/codepage resolution, reading complete lines, slice semantics with omitting fields and avoiding step 0, and token efficiency. It does not describe error handling or return format, but for a read operation, it is fairly transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise with three sentences: one for the main action, one for slice details, one for benefit. No unnecessary words, though the token-efficiency point could be integrated. Well-front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description only vaguely mentions 'compact structured results' without specifying the return format. It covers BOM, slice, and efficiency, but lacks details on error handling or edge cases. Sibling tools exist but this description stands alone reasonably.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the Python-style slice syntax (omit fields for None, never use step 0) and the token-efficient intent, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it opens a text file, resolves BOM/codepage, and reads complete lines specified by a Python-style slice. The verb 'Reads' and resource 'text file lines' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting BOM resolution and slice-based line selection, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like read_slice.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies token-efficient usage for specific line ranges, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., read_slice). No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• text_file__replace_textA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic BOM/codepage resolution, saving with original encoding, and replacement modes. Lacks details on error handling or file-locking behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact and front-loaded with core functionality. It uses clear sentences, though could be structured with bullet points for readability. No unnecessary repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema is provided, and the description only vaguely mentions 'compact structured results.' It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or behavior for missing files. For a complex tool with 12 parameters, more context would help.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about BOM/codepage handling and token efficiency, which goes beyond the schema. It also clarifies the effect of start/stop offsets and text_type modes.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool opens a text file, replaces text (exact substring, whole-word, or identifier-style) within optional offsets, and writes back. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing token efficiency and specific replacement modes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use for targeted text replacement and token efficiency but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like replace_slice or replace_content_by_line_range. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• text_file__file_content_lengthA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that the file is opened, BOM and codepage are resolved, and only the character count is returned. It does not mention side effects (none expected), but for a read-only operation this is sufficient. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes a brief efficiency note. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers what it does and provides efficiency context. It could mention the return format explicitly, but the purpose is clear.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic information beyond the schema for the parameter. The mention of BOM/codepage resolution is about behavior, not the parameter itself.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool opens a text file, resolves BOM and codepage, and returns the character count. This is a specific action and distinguishes it from sibling tools that read slices, replace text, or find patterns.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions token-efficiency, implying use when a compact result is needed instead of full content. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of siblings provides differentiation.

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

• text_file__replace_sliceA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behaviors: BOM/codepage resolution, slice semantics, and original encoding preservation. Lacks warnings about permissions or error conditions, but sufficient given no annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Four sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Covers essential aspects: file manipulation, encoding, slice syntax. Could mention error scenarios (e.g., file not found, invalid slice) but adequate for core functionality.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Adds significant meaning beyond schema: clarifies slice object fields (start, stop, step) as optional, warns against step 0, and explains token efficiency. Schema already has descriptions, but description enriches understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states the tool opens a text file, replaces content using a Python-style slice, and saves with original encoding. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying slice mechanism and token efficiency.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Implied usage through token-efficiency mention, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like text_file__replace_text or text_file__replace_span_between_boundaries.

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

• text_file__replace_content_by_line_rangeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: automatic BOM and codepage handling, line replacement by slice, saving with original encoding and BOM, and token-efficiency. No contradictions or omissions.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise (4 sentences) with no fluff. It front-loads the core operation, then details the slice format, efficiency benefits, and encoding preservation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (3 params, nested object, no output schema), the description adequately explains the tool's operation and parameter usage. However, it does not specify the return value format, which is a minor gap for completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for the 'line_range' parameter (Python slice syntax, omit fields for None, avoid step 0). It does not significantly enhance 'text' or 'source_file_path' beyond the schema, but the added value for the nested object justifies a 4.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states the tool opens a text file, replaces lines selected by a Python-style line-number slice, and writes back. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying line-range slice replacement, which is unique among replace tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by mentioning token-efficiency and targeting specific content, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives among siblings. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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