write_file

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

No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the tool's function without disclosing any behavioral traits such as overwrite semantics, file creation behavior, or error handling. This is a significant gap 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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, providing no additional value beyond the tool name, similar to a tautology.

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?

For a file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain default overwrite behavior, whether directories are created, or what occurs on success or failure. The schema covers parameters but not the operational context.

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%, with all four parameters (filePath, content, append, encoding) documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline score of 3 is justified since the schema adequately covers semantic meaning.

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 '写入文件内容' translates to 'Write file content', clearly stating the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_file, delete_file, and copy_file, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_command or create_directory. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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