write_dofile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the deprecation state, which is useful, but it says nothing about what the tool does, side effects, permissions, return behavior, or why it is deprecated. For a tool that likely writes files, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the deprecation warning in the first words. However, the one-sentence notice is under-specified for a tool with a complex schema, sacrificing necessary behavioral and parameter context for brevity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested AnalysisScope, no schema descriptions), the description is grossly incomplete. The deprecation redirect is useful, but it does not explain what the tool does, when it might still be needed, or what consequences follow from invoking it, making it insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides absolutely no parameter information, leaving the agent without any semantic explanation for content, run_name, plan_id, plan_scope, project_path, or intent beyond their names.

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 says only 'Deprecated: use run_prepare' and does not state what the tool does. The name 'write_dofile' suggests writing a do-file, but the description does not explicitly define the verb/resource or scope, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name and sibling context.

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 explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool by marking it 'Deprecated' and names a concrete alternative: 'use run_prepare.' This is clear when-not-to-use guidance with an explicit replacement, exceeding mere implied usage.

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