setPrettyPrinterSetting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Sets', implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as permission requirements, whether changes are persistent, side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Sets the pretty printer settings.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but purely in terms of conciseness, it is optimal.

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 mutation nature (implied by 'Sets'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with system state, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('indent' and 'style'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of style values or the effect of indentation. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details.

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 'Sets the pretty printer settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the action ('Sets') and resource ('pretty printer settings'), but lacks details about what these settings control or their impact, making it vague compared to more descriptive alternatives.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, related tools (e.g., 'prettyPrinter' or 'prettyPrinterSetting' from the sibling list), or specific contexts for application, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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