find_text_occurrences

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains the tool's mode ('FILE MODE'), states it does not mutate the already-open Hangul window, and clarifies it returns structural addresses for subsequent editing tools. It implies it is a read-only find operation, which is transparent. Would benefit from explicitly stating it does not modify files.

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 structured with a clear lead sentence, then context, usage conditions, and workflow. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose with the inline references to other tools. Could be tightened, but overall efficient for the information provided.

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 presence of an output schema (so return details are covered elsewhere), the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it fits into a larger workflow. It mentions 'structural addresses' but does not detail their format; however, the agent can infer from the output schema. The description is complete for deciding to invoke this tool.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'path' and 'query' parameters. While 'path' is implied by 'FILE MODE' and 'query' as the text to find, there is no detail on expected formats, valid values, or how to specify the query (e.g., plain text vs. regex). This leaves the agent guessing.

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 verb 'Locate repeated visible text' and specifies the resource ('FILE MODE') and goal ('so edits can be scoped, not guessed'). It distinguishes from blind text replace and aligns with sibling tools like 'find_text' by emphasizing structural addresses.

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 describes when to use (template with repeated markers, table cells), what not to do (global replace without scope), and the complete workflow: get occurrences, then use 'preview_addressed_edits' and 'apply_addressed_edits' or 'complete_addressed_template'. Provides clear alternatives and next steps.

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