ruff_format

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description's 'without modifying files' essentially repeats the read-only annotation and adds no new behavioral context like return behavior, prerequisites, or edge cases.

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. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it sacrifices substantive content 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?

With two optional parameters and an output schema, the description should provide enough context to call the tool correctly. It only states the purpose, leaving parameter semantics, distinguishing features, and usage scenarios unexplained. It is minimally adequate but far from 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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('paths' or 'changed_only'). The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters mean or how to use them beyond their names and types, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific action ('Check Ruff formatting') and a key trait ('without modifying files'), which is clear and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ruff_check, so it lacks explicit distinction from alternatives.

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 others, no exclusions, and no context about preferred scenarios. It is a single statement with no usage direction.

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