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 explain what 'pretty printer' entails (e.g., indentation, line breaks, style rules), whether it modifies the input permanently, or what happens on errors. For a formatting tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a code formatting tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., formatting rules, error handling), usage guidelines, and output expectations (no output schema is provided). Without annotations or sibling differentiation, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 semantic information beyond this, such as format requirements or examples. 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: 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer.' It specifies the verb ('Formats') and resource ('ABAP code'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' or 'syntaxCheckCode', which reduces clarity in distinguishing its unique role.

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, such as needing valid ABAP code, or compare it to similar tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation or 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' for configuration. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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