save_all

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that files are saved, but omits critical behavioral details such as whether the operation is atomic, what happens on failure, whether a confirmation prompt appears, or what the return value indicates. A more transparent description would note side effects or state changes.

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 extremely concise: four words serve as a complete and clear statement. Every word earns its place without any filler. The structure is front-loaded 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), yet the description lacks completeness. For instance, it does not explain what happens if no files are open, whether the tool returns a success/failure indicator, or if it triggers any side effects (e.g., format on save). More context would make the agent more confident in using it correctly.

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 no properties (0 parameters), so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Save all open files' uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('all open files'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'save_file' (single file) and 'close_file' (close action). It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_file for individual files), nor does it mention any prerequisites or warnings about potential data loss or conflicts. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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