as_format_code

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that backups are created before formatting and that confirm must be true, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. Does not fully detail error handling or consequences of false confirm.

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?

Description is concise, with a clear one-line summary, followed by essential backup and confirm notes, and structured Args/Returns sections. No wasted words, well 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 the tool's complexity, the description covers key aspects: action, backup behavior, confirm requirement, and return format. Lacks info on error handling or edge cases, but annotations and schema fill some gaps. Nearly complete for a formatting tool.

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 description coverage from tool text is 0%, but the input schema itself has detailed descriptions for each property (target, mask, recursive, confirm). The description only lists parameter names and emphasizes the confirm requirement, adding minimal extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers details.

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?

Description clearly states 'Reformat files in place using the IDE's formatter', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like as_inspect_code or as_gradle_lint by focusing on direct file formatting with backups and confirmation 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?

Explicitly requires confirm=true, giving a prerequisite for use. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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