format_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Formats code') but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it modifies the input code in place, returns formatted output, requires specific file types, or has side effects like saving to disk. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 a code formatting tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the scope of Prettier's capabilities. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'code', 'filePath', or 'parser' do, their relationships, or typical usage patterns. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'filePath' is optional for inline code or how 'parser' affects formatting. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Formats') and resource ('code') with the specific tool used ('Prettier'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deobfuscate' or 'analyze_structure', which might also process code in different ways, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like cleaning up messy code, preparing for commits, or why one might choose Prettier over other formatting methods. Without such context, the agent lacks direction for appropriate tool selection.

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