webdev_xml_formatter

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions pretty-printing, custom indentation, validation, and error reporting, but lacks details on supported indentation styles, error format, or any limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Contains some redundancy ('XML Formatter', 'Free XML formatting tool') and an internal 'Menu ID' that is not useful. Front-loaded with the key action, but could be more concise by removing extraneous text.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return values (formatted XML, errors). Mentions 'detailed error reporting' but not output format. Overall, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks specifics about input expectations and output structure.

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?

Input schema allows any properties (additionalProperties: true) and has 0 defined parameters. Description doesn't add parameter info, but with 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, no additional detail is needed. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool formats, validates, and beautifies XML, which distinguishes it from sibling formatters for JSON, SQL, CSS, etc. Uses specific verb+resource: 'Format, validate and beautify XML online.'

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?

Implied to be used for XML formatting, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like other formatters or validation tools. Suggests using describe_tool for full guidance, which shifts responsibility.

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