webdev_javascript_beautifier

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral details: runs locally, read-only, non-destructive, offline, no external service, rate-limited, and returns formatted code with stats and syntax warnings. It also clarifies it does not transpile or fully validate, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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 long. The first sentence states the core purpose and key features; the second covers usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and output. Every sentence adds value, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and output summary (formatted code, stats, warnings). The parameter schema is comprehensive, and the description complements it well. No obvious gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions configurable options (indent, brace style, etc.) but does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (each option has a description and examples in the schema). No additional parameter guidance is given.

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 is a JavaScript beautifier that pretty-prints and re-indents minified or messy JavaScript. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings webdev_js_minifier (reverse operation) and webdev_code_formatter (HTML/CSS in one pass), fulfilling the specific verb+resource+scope requirement.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('use it to make JS readable') and names alternatives for other scenarios ('use webdev_js_minifier for the reverse... and webdev_code_formatter when you also need HTML/CSS in one pass'). This provides clear selection guidance.

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