format_for_wpcodebox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('format'), but doesn't explain what formatting entails, whether it validates input, what the output looks like, or any error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 that gets straight to the point. It wastes no words and communicates the core function immediately. This is an excellent example of conciseness with appropriate structure.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain the formatting process, output format, or behavioral characteristics. For a formatting tool with multiple parameters, more context about what the formatting entails would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 any generated code for WPCodebox snippet structure.' It specifies the verb ('format') and resource ('generated code'), and indicates the target format ('WPCodebox snippet structure'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'format_wpcodebox_snippet' or other formatting/generation tools in the list.

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'format_wpcodebox_snippet', 'generate_php_function', and 'validate_wpcodebox_snippet', there's no indication of when this specific formatting tool is appropriate versus when to use other generation or validation tools.

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