Fix Encoding

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

Annotations indicate not read-only but idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining it repairs specific mojibake patterns and mentions dry-run and backup creation, which clarify safety. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively concise at 81 words, but includes an 'Args' section that largely duplicates the schema. It could be streamlined while retaining the helpful mojibake examples. No front-loading issue.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues in dry-run, modified file path, or success status). It also omits details like supported encodings or behavior if no errors found. For a file-modifying tool, this is a significant gap.

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%, so the description adds minimal new meaning. It repeats parameter names with slightly different wording ('Only show problems', 'Create backup'), which provides marginal clarity over the schema's existing descriptions.

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 detects and repairs encoding errors (mojibake, double UTF-8). It provides specific examples of patterns, making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools, none address encoding issues, so it is well-distinguished.

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 when encoding errors are present but gives no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling list includes no similar tools, but the description could still be clearer about context.

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