format_queries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation happens 'in place' (modifying the original) and references format_m's guarantees, but those guarantees are not enumerated. It also omits the dry_run parameter's behavior (whether it prevents changes). This is a moderate disclosure, but the lack of specifics leaves gaps.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is so terse that it omits essential details about parameters and behavioral nuances. While brevity is a virtue, the under-specification makes it less effective than a slightly longer, more informative description would be.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not describe the effect of formatting (e.g., whitespace changes), the role of source, the purpose of dry_run, or any error conditions. The vague reference to 'same guarantees as format_m' assumes prior knowledge and does not stand alone. An agent cannot fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 explain the parameters. It only hints at the query parameter via 'one query, or every query,' implying that query can be null to target all, but it does not explain the source parameter (required) or the dry_run flag (default false). The meaning of these parameters is left entirely to the schema, which itself has no descriptions. This is a significant shortfall.

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 a clear verb-resource pair: 'Format one query, or every query, in place.' It specifies the operation (format), the target (queries), and the scope (one or all). The reference to format_m also distinguishes it from the sibling tool for M expressions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to format queries. The phrase 'same guarantees as format_m' hints that format_m is for M code, but it does not explicitly state 'use format_m for M expressions.' However, given the sibling list includes format_m and no other formatting tool for queries, the intended use is reasonably clear, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.

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