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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a non-mutating formatting operation but says nothing about error handling for invalid CSS, whether comments/whitespace are preserved, or how the result is returned.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient density. It neither buries anything nor says enough to be considered well-structured.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn behavior, and it provides a single fragment. Too much essential context (usage, error behavior, parameter meaning) is missing.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The three parameters (input, indent, printWidth) get no semantic explanation beyond the enum values and defaults that the schema already exposes, so the description adds zero value here.

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 names a specific verb ('pretty-print') and resource ('CSS'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the format siblings html_format, js_format, json_format, and yaml_format. It is clear but offers no explicit sibling differentiation, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other formatters, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the input must be valid CSS), and no exclusion conditions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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