quick_replace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's literal text matching behavior ('literal, not regex'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like whether the operation is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), error handling, or file permissions needed.

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 that front-loads the core functionality ('Simple find and replace across a file') and adds a crucial constraint ('without regex'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (file editing operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and key constraint but lacks details on behavioral aspects like destructiveness, error cases, or output format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verb ('find and replace') and resource ('across a file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'without regex' (unlike sed_edit or perl_edit which likely use regex). It's not a tautology of the name 'quick_replace'.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('without regex'), which helps differentiate it from regex-based siblings like sed_edit and perl_edit. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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