webdev_yaml_formatter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: formatting, validation, conversion to JSON, error pinpointing with line numbers, and custom indentation. It does not mention if the tool is read-only or destructive, but formatting tools are typically non-destructive, so the transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences long and covers the essential functions. The first sentence 'Menu ID: yaml_formatter' is somewhat redundant but does not significantly harm conciseness. The reference to describe_tool adds a minor overhead. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description outlines the main operations but does not specify input format, return value structure, or error handling. It compensates by directing to describe_tool for full details. For a simple formatting tool, it provides sufficient but not complete context.

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 input schema is an empty object with additionalProperties: true, implying arbitrary parameters, but no formal parameter definitions. The description mentions 'custom indentation' as a capability but does not specify how to pass it or any other parameters. Schema description coverage is 100% because there are no defined parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond stating functionality.

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, validates, and beautifies YAML, and lists specific actions like pretty-printing, converting to JSON, and pinpointing syntax errors. It is distinct from sibling formatters by explicitly targeting YAML.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, which is indirect. No explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings.

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