gdformat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to deliver. '格式化' implies rewriting files, but the description never discloses that running this tool actually modifies the user's source file in place (given check defaults to false), nor does it mention idempotency, prerequisites (gdformat installation), or side effects. The schema hints at mutation via the check param, but the description itself is silent on 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, efficient sentence with zero fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action. The brevity is more a symptom of under-specification on other dimensions than a conciseness defect.

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 tool that mutates source files, this description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and tool-selection context, and there is no output schema to fill in return-value expectations. The schema covers parameters well, but an agent gets no help on when to invoke this versus siblings or what consequences (in-place file rewriting) to expect.

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%, so all three parameters (file, check, project) are already documented with meaningful descriptions such as absolute-path requirements and the check flag's 'don't actually modify' semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because 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 states a specific verb ('格式化'/'format') and resource ('GDScript 文件'), making the core purpose immediately clear. Formatting is implicitly distinct from the sibling tools' lint/check/validate operations, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly. It leans slightly tautological by saying 'run gdformat' when the tool is already named gdformat, which keeps it just below 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?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives (gdlint, godot_check_all, etc.). No context, no exclusions, and no hint about when formatting is appropriate versus linting or checking. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name and schema.

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