I didn't want to mock them but are these guys for real:

```

Instead of:

    "Update the checklist to mark items 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 as done."

    "Mark items 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 as complete in the checklist. Only insert an x in each checkbox. Do not copy or replace any of the item descriptions."

There is not universe in which this would make agents more efficient - and who is prompting their agents like that in the first place?

I also asked glm to extract all the tools and tell me how they work roughly and nothing interesting really just slop:

```

The server exposes exactly 11 tools (verified via the xa whitelist at L16918, not the larger Eo metadata map which contains ~24 tool definitions — most are dead/legacy):

- 6 read/meta: read_first_n_lines, read_last_n_lines, read_lines, jump_to_line_n, find_in_file, get_file_metadata

- 3 edit/control: quick_edit (6 ops: insert/delete/replace/replace_range/for_lines/adjust), batch_quick_edit (atomic, always-staged, max 500 ops, multi-file), save_changes, cancel_changes

- 1 always-on: license_status

Notable design choices:

- Coordinate-based addressing (line/char/rect) instead of content-echo — saves tokens

- Staging model: edits go to an in-memory shadow, save_changes is the only disk mutation

- The rect + move "click-and-drag" columnar editor (v0.9.7) is the genuinely novel bit

- ReDoS static analyser (~700 lines) protects find_in_file ```