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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It clearly explains the critical wrapping behavior (top-level await, bare return, injected globals) that is not obvious from parameter names alone. This is excellent disclosure for a formatting 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 three sentences long and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds unique value, though the second and third sentences could be slightly more concise without losing meaning. No waste, but minor redundancy.

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 three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains the input requirements well and provides essential behavioral context about wrapping. It lacks details about return format or error handling for malformed code, but the wrapping behavior is the core complexity addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the wrapping context and why parameters matter, but it doesn't add new semantics beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses clear verbs ('format and lint'), specifies the exact supported languages and platforms, and distinguishes itself by detailing the wrapping behavior in platform-specific shells. This purpose is unique and well-defined, especially compared to siblings like ask_codefmt and format_json.

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 implies when to use the tool (for automation platform code) and the specific platforms/languages. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context and specific constraints provide adequate guidance.

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