prettyPrinter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool formats code but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only or modifies data (implied mutation but not confirmed), what happens on invalid input (e.g., errors or no-op), performance considerations (e.g., speed or size limits), or output format (e.g., formatted string or status). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely performs code transformation.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (code formatting likely involves transformation rules) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., formatted code or success status), error handling, or dependencies (e.g., requires ABAP syntax). For a mutation-like tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'source' parameter clearly documented as 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples, constraints (e.g., maximum length), or formatting rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as formatting ABAP code using the pretty printer, specifying both the action (formats) and resource (ABAP code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' (which configures settings) and 'syntaxCheckCode' (which checks syntax). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'fixEdits' or 'extractMethodExecute', which might also involve code transformation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid ABAP syntax), exclusions (e.g., not for non-ABAP code), or comparisons to similar tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation or 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' for configuration. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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