code_beautify

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 mentions a cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not disclose whether the tool reads or modifies data, what its side effects are, or what the output looks like. This is minimal disclosure well below what is needed.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the name and a vague category, then adds a cost. Every sentence is present, but the content is so minimal that it fails to serve a functional purpose. This is not effective conciseness; it is a placeholder.

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?

There is no output schema, no examples, no description of the tool's behavior or return values. For a tool named code_beautify, the description provides no information about what beautifying entails, what inputs it needs, or what outputs it produces. The description is completely inadequate given the tool's apparent complexity.

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 only a generic 'params' object with a placeholder description 'Tool parameters as JSON object'. The tool description adds no information about what keys or values are expected in that object. Schema coverage is technically 100% but the schema itself is meaningless, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the actual parameters required for code beautification.

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 only states 'code beautify — Other Utilities tool' and a cost. It does not specify what the tool does, such as formatting or beautifying code, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like code_stats or code_complexity. The purpose is essentially a restatement of the name plus a category, providing no actual clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. No mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools. The description is completely silent on usage context, leaving the agent without any orientation.

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