code_format

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

The description discloses that different languages are handled by different backends (prettier, sql-formatter, basic indentation), which is valuable behavioral info beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify what the compress action does or the output format, given there are no annotations to cover this.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a concise list of languages and backend mapping. Zero wasted words.

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 tool is simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should mention what the tool returns. It doesn't specify the return value or behavior of compress vs format, leaving some ambiguity for a new agent.

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 describes all parameters, and the description adds meaning by explaining the effect of the language parameter and formatter selection. It helps the agent understand how to choose languages and the compression action.

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 formats/compresses code ('代码格式化/压缩') and enumerates supported languages. It distinguishes itself by specifying language-specific formatter backends (prettier, sql-formatter, basic indentation).

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 provides clear context by listing supported languages and explaining which formatter is used for each. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use 'code_format' vs sibling tools like 'text_format' or 'code_obfuscate'.

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