update_code_to_pep8

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'updates' code, which could imply mutation, but in context, this likely means transforming code for style compliance without permanent changes. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them, such as whether it modifies files in-place or returns formatted content.

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: 'Update Python code to follow PEP8 style.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes essential 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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description doesn't need to cover safety or return values. However, with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidelines, it's incomplete for a code transformation tool. It adequately states the purpose but lacks details on parameters and context, making it minimally viable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'Python code' but doesn't explain the 'model' parameter or its 'files' structure. The description adds some context by implying input is code, but fails to detail parameter requirements or usage, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Update Python code to follow PEP8 style.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('Python code') with a clear objective. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_syntax' or 'complete_code' that also process code, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, when not to use it, or compare it to siblings like 'check_syntax' for validation or 'update_file_contents' for general updates. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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