Code Buddy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool uses 'black' for formatting, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether it overwrites the file in-place, creates backups, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that modifies files.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses specific terminology ('black'). Every word earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'formatting' entails, what 'black' does, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. Given the complexity of file modification and lack of structured data, more context is needed for safe agent use.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'filepath' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., file format expectations, path validity rules). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Format a Python file using black' specifies both the action (format) and the resource (Python file). It distinguishes from siblings like 'lint_code' or 'edit_file' by focusing specifically on formatting with a particular tool (black). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'black' is or how it differs from general code formatting.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when formatting is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), or comparisons to siblings like 'lint_code' (which might handle style issues differently). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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