deed_fmt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the tool enforces a single canonical layout, and it returns parse diagnostics when parsing fails because there is no tree. This adds useful context about failure modes, though it doesn't mention side effects like whether it writes to a file.

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 one sentence with clear front-loading: it states the purpose first, then explains the failure behavior. It is economical and contains no 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?

For a simple one-parameter formatter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequately complete. It explains both success and failure return scenarios, giving enough context to use the tool correctly. Minor gaps include not describing the formatting style or whether the output is idempotent, but these are not essential.

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 already describes the only parameter 'source' completely, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the source is used ('the file does not parse') but doesn't significantly extend the schema's meaning.

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 a Deed program into a specific layout, using the verb 'Format' and resource 'Deed program'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like deed_check (checking) and deed_run (running) by focusing on 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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly stated: the tool is for formatting Deed programs. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, though the description's focus on formatting makes the use case clear enough.

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