format_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns edits without applying them, indicating a read-only operation. It also mentions LSP. More transparency about potential limitations (e.g., file must be open in LSP) would improve, but the current info is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose and non-application behavior. However, it omits details on parameter semantics and the structure of the returned TextEdit[], leaving gaps for an agent to understand full usage.

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 provides no additional meaning for the 4 parameters (file_path, language_id, tab_size, insert_spaces). The description does not explain how these parameters affect formatting, forcing the agent to infer from names alone.

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 verb 'get formatting edits' for an 'entire document via LSP', distinguishing it from the sibling 'format_range' which targets a range. It specifies the output type 'TextEdit[]' and the purpose of inspecting formatting changes.

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 explicitly says 'edits are returned for inspection — they are NOT applied automatically' and advises 'Use this to see what formatting changes a formatter would make'. It implies when to use (preview) but does not mention when to use alternatives like 'format_range' or 'apply_edit'.

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