format_mql

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

The description reveals that the tool uses clang-format and treats source as C++, which is helpful. However, it omits critical behavioral details such as whether the tool writes changes to disk (the 'write' parameter defaults true), whether it returns formatted text, or any potential destructive actions. With no annotations, this gap is significant.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from additional structure, such as listing parameters or noting side effects, without becoming too long. The current brevity sacrifices completeness for conciseness.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, the impact of the 'write' parameter, what happens on success/failure, or any dependencies. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively without additional information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description fails to compensate by explaining the three parameters (source, style, write). It does not clarify valid values for style, the effect of write=false, or what source should contain. This makes it difficult for an agent to correctly construct arguments.

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: formatting an MQL file using clang-format, treating the source as C++. It specifies the verb, resource, and method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like format_check which only check formatting.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like format_check or compile. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. With many siblings, this lack of context reduces usefulness for agent selection.

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