coding_format_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some auth context. However, it does not disclose whether the action modifies code, what the output is, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 relatively short with an Args section. However, it includes routing boilerplate that may not be essential for an agent. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded, but could be more concise by omitting implementation details.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what format_code does, making it hard for the agent to decide when to invoke it. It lacks information on the tool's effect, return value, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It labels 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but it does not specify how these parameters affect the formatting operation. The agent receives little meaningful parameter guidance beyond basic naming.

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 states 'Run the coding domain agent action format_code,' which identifies the specific action but does not explain what formatting entails. The name 'format_code' itself is somewhat descriptive, but the description fails to differentiate it from siblings like coding_explain_code or coding_write_code.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when formatting is appropriate or when to use other coding tools. The description lacks any contextual usage advice.

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