webdev_code_formatter

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states basic formatting capabilities but omits any details about side effects, authorization, rate limits, or behavioral constraints. The description is too brief to be transparent.

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 short with three sentences, but the first sentence is redundant (Menu ID and title). It is not front-loaded with critical information, and the reference to describe_tool adds unnecessary indirection.

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 complexity (4 required params, nested options, no output schema), the description lacks sufficient detail. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or how to use it effectively, making it incomplete.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. However, it provides no explanation of parameter meanings, allowed values, or usage. For instance, the language parameter could be clarified, and the action parameter is not defined.

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 formats, beautifies, and minifies HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like css_beautifier or html_minifier, which overlap in functionality.

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 only mentions using describe_tool for 'full page guidance' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are listed.

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