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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pretty-printing with indentation, but lacks details on handling of comments, CDATA, namespace declarations, or error behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly restructured to include the 'When' context more naturally.

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 the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not specify indentation style (spaces/tabs) or any formatting options, leaving gaps for correct usage.

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 does not add any meaning to the 'text' parameter beyond its name. The parameter's purpose and format (e.g., must be valid XML) are not explained.

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 'Pretty-print XML with indentation' clearly states the verb (pretty-print) and resource (XML). It distinguishes from siblings like xml_to_json and xml_validate by focusing on formatting, but doesn't explicitly call out differences.

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 includes a 'When' clause: 'When: Pretty-print XML after the agent edits markup.' This provides context for usage but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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