format_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions config-driven formatting and optional line ranges, but does not disclose that formatting writes to the file, does not mention the preview mode, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on failure. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The primary action and config source are front-loaded, followed by the optional range behavior.

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?

The description covers the core action and range formatting, and the schema covers all parameters. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should also explain the write side effect and preview behavior. It is adequate but leaves important behavioral context to the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents file, preview, start_line, and end_line. The description reinforces that start_line/end_line are 1-based and inclusive, which adds minor value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: formatting a file according to lazyverilog.toml [format] rules. It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like lint, rename_symbol, or code_actions. No explicit sibling differentiation is needed here, but it is also absent.

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 explains how to limit formatting to a line range with start_line/end_line, which is useful usage guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives for broader formatting or preview workflows.

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