format_xml

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

With no annotations provided, the description should compensate by disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention error handling for malformed XML, whether comments are preserved, or if the tool is idempotent. The description is too minimal for a tool with no structured metadata.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning expected output).

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output is (formatted XML string), how errors in input XML are handled, or any side effects. A more complete description would include these details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The schema already documents both parameters (text, indent_size) with types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 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?

The description 'Format and beautify XML' clearly states the action (format/beautify) and the resource (XML). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like format_json or format_html by naming XML explicitly. However, it does not elaborate on scope or disambiguation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., format_html for HTML). The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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