format_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a formatted string), whether it validates SQL syntax, how it handles different dialects, or any error behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose with no redundant or vague wording. Every word earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as the return value, behavior on invalid SQL, and how the dialect parameter alters output. This gap in contextual information makes the tool description incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 schema describes 'sql' and 'dialect' (67% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. However, the existing schema descriptions are adequate, and 'indent' is self-explanatory from its name and default value. The description doesn't compensate for the missing 'indent' description, but the overall parameter understanding is acceptable.

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 action ('format and pretty-print') and the resource ('SQL queries'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like format_json and analyze_sql by focusing specifically on SQL formatting, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of when to use it, when not to use it, or how it compares to alternatives such as analyze_sql or format_json. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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