Format .mmt file

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

The description says 'Format a Multimeter file', which implies modifying the file's contents, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: the agent cannot tell whether the operation rewrites the file or only reads it. No additional behavior (output, error, side effects) is disclosed. Flagged as Annotation Contradiction.

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 and front-loads the main purpose before usage and exclusion guidance. The last sentence about not using testlight/npx/npm/shell/node is unusual and slightly distracting, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 doesn't state whether the file is modified in place, what the output/return value is, or how canonical ordering is applied. With no output schema and a contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation, an agent lacks enough information to predict the tool's behavior.

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 parameters file and workspaceRoot are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general purpose of formatting, not parameter-specific meaning, which meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Format') and resource ('Multimeter file'/.mmt) and mentions canonical field ordering and style rules, which differentiates it from siblings like validate and run. The title reinforces the .mmt scope.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance ('Call after validate passes') and the intended use case ('normalizing generated or edited YAML'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for non-formatting needs, but the ordering constraint is clear.

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