Format Carve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds that it reports lossy raw-format nodes, which is useful, but it doesn't clarify what constitutes a lossy node or what the report looks like. This is acceptable given the annotations but not richly detailed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and free of redundant wording. Every component earns its place: the verb, the resource, the mode ('canonically'), and the reporting 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool this is mostly sufficient: it names the action and the report. However, there is no output schema, so the description should more explicitly define the 'report' output format. It also doesn't mention error behavior or what 'canonical' means in practice, leaving some ambiguity.

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 100% coverage with a description for the single 'source' parameter, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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: 'Format Carve source canonically.' It also indicates a distinct outcome—reporting lossy raw-format nodes—which separates it from parsing, linting, rendering, or migrating. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb 'Format' and the unique report clause make the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for canonical formatting of Carve source, so an agent could infer when it applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over carve_lint, carve_render, or carve_migrate, nor any 'when not to use' conditions.

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