Fix Encoding

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

The description discloses that the tool repairs common mojibake patterns and explains the dry_run and create_backup params. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true (repairs are safe to reapply) and destructiveHint=false (no destructive side effects), which aligns with the description. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the file is modified in place.

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 efficient with two paragraphs: first defining the purpose and listing arguments, then giving specific repair examples. It front-loads the core action (detect and repair encoding errors). Minor improvement possible by moving examples lower.

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 no output schema, the description could mention return values (e.g., count of fixes), but the examples and parameter descriptions provide enough for basic use. The tool's complexity is low, so the description is mostly complete.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by listing the three arguments (path, dry_run, create_backup) with slightly more context (e.g., 'Show only problems' vs schema's 'Preview only'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the explicit listing and examples add extra clarity.

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 that the tool detects and repairs encoding errors, with specific examples like mojibake and double UTF-8. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fc_fix_json and fc_str_replace by focusing on encoding issues.

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 use for files with encoding errors, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like fc_cleanup_file or fc_str_replace. However, the specific examples of German umlauts and euro sign repairs provide clear context for typical use cases.

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