ast-editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool inserts comments before symbols and includes an example, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this modifies files in-place, what happens if the target doesn't exist, error conditions, or what the output contains. The example helps but leaves gaps.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement, usage guidelines, and example. Every sentence earns its place. The information is front-loaded with clear purpose, followed by specific guidance, then illustrative example.

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?

While there's an output schema (which helps), this is a file-modifying tool with 3 parameters and 0% schema description coverage. The description explains the core operation and provides good usage guidance, but lacks important context about how the tool behaves (error handling, file modification approach) and parameter meanings. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'target' and 'comment' parameters in the example but doesn't explain what 'file_path', 'target', or 'comment' represent semantically. The example shows target='LRUCache.get' but doesn't explain target syntax. No information about file_path parameter at all.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Insert comment line(s)') and resource ('before a named symbol'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying what it does differently from related tools like replace_docstring and replace_leading_comment.

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 provides 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' sections with clear alternatives named (replace_docstring, replace_leading_comment). This gives perfect guidance on when to choose this tool versus other options.

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