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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names Prettier (useful, implies opinionated deterministic formatting) but says nothing about side effects, whether syntax errors throw, idempotency, or that it is a pure transform rather than a file-writing operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the six undocumented parameters.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits parameter behavior, error/parse-failure handling, and return format. An agent knows what the tool is for but not how to drive it correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Parameter names like semi, singleQuote, printWidth, indent and parser are largely self-explanatory from their enums/defaults/bounds, which earns minimal credit, but the description adds zero meaning over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pretty-print JavaScript / TypeScript') and names the engine (Prettier), which cleanly separates it from json_format, css_format, html_format and other siblings by input language. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named, even though the sibling list contains several other format tools whose boundaries (JS vs JSON vs TS) an agent might want confirmed. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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