Godette

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'emit a file change event,' which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), which are critical for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action and a behavioral note. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, making it adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool in a complex environment.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'search' and 'replace' interact or what 'emit a file change event' entails parameter-wise). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Replace text content in a file') and the resource ('a file'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'replace_symbol_body' or 'delete_lines', which also modify file content, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'replace_symbol_body' and 'delete_lines' that also handle text modifications, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent select appropriately.

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