search_and_replace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('replace all occurrences') but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it modifies files in-place, requires write permissions, handles errors (e.g., file not found), affects formatting, or provides confirmation. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic details about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'filename' expects (path, name, extension), whether 'find_text' supports regex, or if 'replace_text' can be empty. With 3 required parameters and no schema help, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('search for text and replace all occurrences') and resource (implied document/text), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_text_in_document' by specifying the replacement action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other text manipulation tools like 'format_text' or 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for partial replacements), or compare it to siblings like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' for more targeted operations. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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