codeql_format

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 the action (formatting) and the return shape (dictionary with text edits and metadata), which gives a reasonable idea of the tool's behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the file is modified on disk or only edits are returned, nor does it discuss side effects, permissions, or error cases. This is a moderate level of 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args list and Returns note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every line provides useful information. There is no wordy filler or repetition of schema details that are already obvious.

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 moderate complexity (formatting with optional range) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage and return shape. It lacks explicit usage comparisons with siblings and side-effect clarity, but for a narrow formatting tool it is adequate. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values in prose.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is the only semantic guidance. It explains each parameter's role (e.g., 'Start line for range formatting'), which meaningfully compensates for the schema gap. However, the explanations are brief and do not cover coordinate conventions or constraints beyond basic intent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Formats a CodeQL file according to standard conventions.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like codeql_complete, codeql_hover, or codeql_definition. The purpose is unambiguous and the tool's scope is well defined.

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 formatting CodeQL files, with optional range parameters to scope the formatting. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions (e.g., 'Use codeql_update_file for direct edits'). The context is clear but not fully elaborated with when-not-to-use guidance.

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