format_compact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core formatting behavior but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., handling of very large numbers, negative numbers), error conditions, or additional behavioral traits beyond the example. The description 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 a single concise sentence with a relevant example, front-loading the core functionality. No unnecessary words.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose but lacks details on parameter combinations, return format, or locale-specific behavior beyond the example. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context by mentioning 'Arabic scale words' and providing an example that illustrates the effect of locale and value, but does not elaborate on each parameter individually. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool formats numbers in compact notation with Arabic scale words, and provides a concrete example. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like format_number, which likely handles more general formatting.

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 usage for compact formatting with Arabic locale via the example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., format_number for other locales) or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit.

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