Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Replace text' gives no information about whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be required, error handling, or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to understand how the tool behaves.

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 with just two words, 'Replace text', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide necessary context about purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to effectively use the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description 'Replace text' adds no meaningful information about parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'text', 'search', 'replace', or 'replace_all' mean, their expected formats, or how they interact, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Replace text' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'string_replace' without adding meaningful specificity. While it does indicate a text replacement function, it lacks the detail needed to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'regex_replace' or other string manipulation tools in the server.

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 'regex_replace' available, there is no indication of whether this tool performs simple string replacement versus regex-based replacement, or any other contextual usage instructions.

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