format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detected command' but does not state whether formatting modifies files, what command will be run, or any potential side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs write operations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized; for a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this brevity leaves critical details absent. It is not verbose, but it also does not fully earn its place as a standalone guide.

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 low complexity (two optional params, no output schema), a slightly richer description would suffice, but this one is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'detected command' mechanism, parameter semantics, or how this tool differs from sibling tools like lint and typecheck. The agent lacks essential context for reliable invocation.

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 is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'cwd' or 'target' parameters at all. An agent cannot determine what values to provide or how these parameters affect the formatting operation. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 phrase 'Run formatting' clearly identifies a specific action (formatting code), and 'with a detected command' adds context about automatic tool detection. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like lint and build, though the meaning of 'formatting' could be more explicit in a development context.

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 such as lint, typecheck, or build. There is no mention of prerequisites, target selection, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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