search_and_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes to a new file (non-destructive) and fails on multiple matches unless scope='all'. This covers key error behavior and safety, but omits return value or side effects.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It could be slightly improved by separating the failure condition, but it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (unprovided), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter syntax, return format, or usage context beyond the failure condition, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0% and the description adds no explicit parameter definitions. It only mentions 'scope' in a condition. For 5 parameters (find, path, replace, out_path, scope), the AI must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 'One-shot text replace written to a NEW file', specifying the action (replace text) and output destination (new file). This distinguishes it from siblings like batch_replace (likely in-place) and find_text (no replace).

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 usage via the failure condition 'fails closed on 2+ matches unless scope="all"', guiding when to set scope. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool over siblings.

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