ast-editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's core behavior (preserving body and decorators while replacing signature) and includes an example, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects (e.g., file modification impacts), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and an example. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and the structure is logical and efficient for quick comprehension by an agent.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters and no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and provides an example, but could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and low schema coverage.

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 an example that clarifies the semantics of 'target' (e.g., 'LRUCache.get') and 'new_signature' (e.g., 'def get(self, key, default=None):'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it does not explain 'file_path' or provide format details, leaving some parameter understanding incomplete.

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 specific action ('Replace only the signature of a function') and resource ('a function'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'replace_function' by emphasizing preservation of body and decorators. It explicitly contrasts with 'add_parameter' and 'remove_parameter' for parameter changes, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 guidance on when to use ('changing parameters, return type, or function name without modifying the implementation') and when not to use ('Don't use this when: You also want to change the body -> use `replace_function`' and 'You're adding/removing one parameter -> use `add_parameter`/`remove_parameter`'). It names specific alternative tools, offering clear decision criteria for the agent.

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