webdev_javascript_beautifier

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond beautification. It omits details like return format, side effects, or prerequisites for use.

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 core description is concise (one sentence), but it includes unnecessary meta-info about Menu ID and a reference to describe_tool, which wastes space without adding value.

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 complexity of the input schema (two parameters with nested required fields), the description is severely incomplete. It offers no output info, parameter defaults, or examples, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description provides no information about the required parameters 'code' and 'options'. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance beyond the schema structure.

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 it beautifies JavaScript code, including formatting actions like fixing indentation and improving readability. However, it includes extraneous 'Menu ID' info and doesn't differentiate from sibling formatter tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., webdev_code_formatter). The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate tool among many formatters.

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