glm_implement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's mutation capability with 'Has FULL access including Write and Edit' and 'WARNING: This can modify files', and it mentions that the output includes 'changes made'. This goes beyond the name and schema, though it could add more detail on scope or reversibility.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening line, a 'Use for' list, a warning, a parameter list, and a returns note. No redundant sentences or filler.

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 mutating nature, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, warning, parameters, and return information. The output schema is noted, and the 'Returns' line suffices. Minor gaps like lack of detail on how changes are applied or any security/backup considerations prevent a perfect score.

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. The 'Args:' section explains each parameter's purpose, such as 'task: Implementation task to perform' and 'working_directory: Project directory (REQUIRED)'. While 'allowed_tools' is somewhat vague ('full coding set'), the descriptions add meaningful context for all 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's function: 'GLM agent with write access for implementation tasks' and lists concrete use cases ('writing code, creating files, making changes, refactoring'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'FULL access including Write and Edit' and the warning about modifying files, which sets it apart from read-only analysis tools.

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 use cases under 'Use for:' and warns 'WARNING: This can modify files', signaling when caution is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, though the sibling tool names imply read-only options.

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