find-and-replace-in-page

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool supports regex patterns, Markdown formatting in replacement, and only works with specified text-based blocks. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a simple find-and-replace, this is adequate.

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 concise at about 6 sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds information without redundancy. Slightly verbose but 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 low parameter count (4) and no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient detail on functionality, limitations, and examples. It covers regex, Markdown, block types, and sibling differentiation. Could mention error handling, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining regex usage with an example and detailing Markdown formatting support, which is not in the schema. It also lists supported block types, providing practical context.

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 action: 'Find text in a page and replace it with new content.' It specifies the resource (a page) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'replace-page-content' by noting partial vs full updates.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this for partial updates' and when not: 'For full page rewrite, use replace-page-content instead.' This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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