format_gdscript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Formats' implies an action but does not state whether the file is modified in place, whether it returns formatted text, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates a file.

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 (two words), which is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified for an actionable tool definition, so the conciseness comes at the expense of necessary detail.

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 with one parameter, but the absence of any behavioral or return information, combined with no annotations and no output schema, leaves an agent unable to predict the outcome. It does not explain whether the file is rewritten or whether the result is returned.

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 has zero description coverage for the only parameter, script_path, and the description adds nothing beyond the parameter name. The name suggests a file path, but there is no explanation of expected format, relative/absolute path, or constraints, which the description should compensate for.

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 'Formats GDScript' clearly states the verb (format) and resource (GDScript). It is distinct enough from siblings like validate_script and run_tests, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention what formatting entails.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_script. No mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or situations where this tool would be inappropriate. The usage context is entirely absent.

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