write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, creates missing directories, or supports append. The phrase '写入或编辑' implies full content replacement, but this is not explicit.

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?

Extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of missing crucial details. The description is front-loaded with the primary action but lacks structure (no sections or examples).

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 complexity (write operation, many sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_file' or 'copy_file'.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no further detail beyond the schema (e.g., encoding, behavior for large content). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.

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 writes or edits file content, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_file' (which likely creates empty files) and 'edit_file_advanced' (which may offer more granular editing), but lacks explicit differentiation. The Chinese language may reduce clarity for English-only agents.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., create_file, edit_file_advanced). No mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or contexts where this tool is inappropriate.

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