ast-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's 'Read-only' (safety profile), explains what gets transformed (method bodies replaced by '...'), and provides concrete examples of output format. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but covers the core operational behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured with purpose statement, usage guidelines, and examples in distinct sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage context, and the third gives concrete examples. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, transformation behavior) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context well. The main gap is incomplete parameter documentation (file_path unexplained), but otherwise it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 provides meaningful context for the 'target' parameter through examples (LRUCache for class, process for function), clarifying what values are expected and how they affect output. However, it doesn't explain the 'file_path' parameter at all, leaving one of two parameters undocumented beyond the schema.

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 verbs ('Return a stub view', 'returns just its signature') and resources ('class', 'function target'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives (read_symbol, get_signature) and explaining what this tool provides that they don't (public API view without implementation details).

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 provides explicit 'Use this when' and 'Don't use this when' sections with clear alternatives named (read_symbol for full implementation, get_signature for single method). It gives specific scenarios (understanding public API, token efficiency) and contrasts with sibling tools, offering complete guidance on when to choose this tool.

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