prettyPrinterSetting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the content of the setting (keyword case and identifier treatment) and its impact on formatting, which is useful but not extensive. It does not describe any side effects or response structure beyond that, and since it's a read-only operation, no side effects are expected. The description aligns with annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The core information (what the setting contains) is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is provided concisely. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines what the setting is, what aspects it covers, and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure, but the description gives a reasonable overview. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description need not repeat that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the setting represents, which helps an agent understand the returned data even though there is no output schema. With no parameters to document, the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and return semantics.

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 explains what the tool provides: the user's pretty-printing settings, including keyword casing and identifier handling. It implicitly communicates that this is a read operation (the setting is described as a state), and it differentiates from the sibling setPrettyPrinterSetting by focusing on the current configuration rather than modification. However, it does not explicitly state the verb 'get' or 'retrieve', leaving the action slightly implicit.

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 gives a concrete usage scenario: 'Worth reading before formatting a source that is not yours' – indicating when to consult this tool. It explains the relevance by linking the setting to the effect on every reformatted line. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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