Rewrites Renyi source text into its canonical layout and returns parse diagnostics when the code does not parse.
The canonical layout of Renyi source text, what renyi format writes; the parse diagnostics when it does not parse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | the text of a module |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the dual return mode (formatted text on success, parse diagnostics on failure), which is real context beyond the schema. But it never clarifies whether the tool writes to disk or the source is mutated—'what `renyi format` writes' is ambiguous about side effects and reversibility, a notable gap for a mutation-ambiguous tool.
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 tight sentence with a semicolon splitting the success and failure behavior—no wasted words and the primary behavior leads. It is efficient, though the elliptical phrasing trades a little clarity for brevity.
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 one-parameter transformer with no output schema, the description does explain what comes back in both success and failure cases, which is the key missing structured info. It still leaves side-effect semantics and any usage context unaddressed, so it is adequate but not fully complete.
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% for the single 'source' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or size constraints beyond the term 'Renyi source text'. Baseline 3 applies 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 identifies the tool's output (the canonical Renyi layout, plus parse diagnostics on failure), so an agent can infer it is a formatter. However, it is phrased as a noun clause rather than a verb+resource statement and never says explicitly that it formats source code, nor does it differentiate itself from parse-adjacent siblings like check or definition.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative tool. The only hint is the assumed equivalence to the `renyi format` command, which the agent must already know. Nothing tells the agent when to reach for format vs check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.