multi_read_edit

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses default token-saving behavior for edit ops, and explains optional parameters for content retrieval. Could mention error handling or auth, but overall good for a tool of this type.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage rule, then behavioral detail. No wasted words, very 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?

Covers purpose, usage pattern, return behavior, and optional parameters. Lacks error handling or file path details, but sufficient given schema provides nested param definitions.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains include_content and include_original usage for retrieving content or diffs, and reinforces that read-only ops return content. Operations parameter is explained in context of batching, though schema covers nested fields.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read and optionally edit multiple files in one call' with verb+resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by instructing to batch multi-file operations here instead of separate calls.

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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS batch multi-file operations here instead of separate read_file/edit calls', providing clear context for use. However, no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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