Text-Toolkit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'format and beautify' implies a read-only transformation, it doesn't specify whether the tool validates SQL syntax, what formatting rules it applies, whether it preserves comments, or what happens with malformed input. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses efficient phrasing. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 transformation tool with 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what formatting standards it follows, or provide any context about the parameters. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should do much more to be 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'text' should contain or what 'indent_size' controls. The description doesn't mention that 'text' is the SQL to format or explain what 'indent_size' means in the context of SQL beautification. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('format and beautify') and resource ('SQL'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'format_html', 'format_json', and 'format_xml' tools, which all perform similar formatting functions on different data types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when SQL formatting is needed, what types of SQL it handles, or how it differs from other formatting tools like 'format_json' or 'format_html' in the sibling list.

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