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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation operation ('Edit') but does not state whether changes are permanent, whether write permissions are required, or what happens if the old string is not found. It also leaves ambiguous whether all occurrences are replaced or just the first. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It is efficient and to the point, though it has a minor grammatical issue ('documents content'). It earns a 4 because it is appropriately sized and immediately understandable.

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?

For a simple replace operation with fully described parameters, the description is fairly minimal. But it lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify whether replacement is global or first-occurrence, what the return value is, or error handling when the old string is absent. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make the tool incomplete for an agent to predict behavior accurately.

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 has 100% coverage with each parameter described (doc_id, old_str, new_str). The description does not add any semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3. The schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('document') with a specific action ('replacing a string... with a new string'). It distinguishes from the sibling read_doc_contents, which is a read operation, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 implies usage (you edit when you need to replace text), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling read_doc_contents, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a simple tool, but explicit 'when not' guidance is missing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the contents are returned as a string and does not mention permissions, read-only behavior, error cases, or what happens with missing or malformed document IDs. For a read operation, this is a notable gap.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core action immediately. The minor grammatical error ('return it a string' instead of 'return it as a string') slightly detracts from polish but does not harm clarity significantly.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the action and the return type. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could better describe return value details, potential errors, or the scope of content returned (e.g., full document vs. excerpt).

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%, with the single parameter 'doc_id' already described as 'Id of the document to read'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('contents of a document') and even specifies the return type ('a string'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'edit-document', which implies modification rather than reading.

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 usage is implied by the tool's purpose: use it when you need to view a document's contents. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose, though the sibling name 'edit-document' hints at the distinction.

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