zig_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that file_path causes in-place formatting (mutation) whereas code returns formatted code (read). But it omits prerequisites (e.g., zig installed), error conditions, and side effects beyond the mode distinction.

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 sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and key modes. Every word contributes, no redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the modes. However, it could mention that formatting requires the zig tool, that file_path expects an absolute path to a .zig file (implied but not explicit), and that code must be valid Zig source.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of the two parameters and the side effects (in-place vs. return), which is not present in the schema.

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 action (Format Zig code using `zig fmt`) and specifies two modes: formatting a file in-place or formatting a code string and returning it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zig_build or zig_completions.

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 tells when to use each parameter (file_path for in-place, code for return), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tools are all different, so implicit differentiation exists.

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