text_find_replace

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds important behavioral details: runs locally, never mutates input, contacts no external service, and specifies rate limits (30 req/min for anonymous). It also explains what the return includes (statistics, counts). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by usage guidance, then behavioral details. It is informative without being verbose. Could be slightly more concise by removing the 'Find and Replace Text with Optional Regex' repetition, but overall efficient.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers all relevant aspects: input constraints (empty returns HTTP 400), behavior (local, read-only, rate-limited), return value (statistics, counts), and alternatives. No gaps remain.

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 already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description's high-level summary of features (case-insensitive, regex, replace-all toggle) provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 performs find-and-replace on text with optional regex, and directly distinguishes itself from siblings like webdev_regex_tester and text_text_splitter by naming specific use cases for each. This meets the highest standard of purpose clarity.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('for literal or regex search-and-replace') and provides named alternatives ('use webdev_regex_tester to test a pattern before applying it, or text_text_splitter to break text on a delimiter'). This is exemplary guidance.

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