code_denoise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It states the stripping action but does not disclose whether the transformation is lossy, what the output format is (e.g., returns cleaned code string), or any limitations (e.g., sourcemap syntax dependence). This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about the result.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and lists the specific items stripped. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 two parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core functionality sufficiently, but does not explicitly state what is returned (e.g., the cleaned code string). Since no output schema is provided, this small omission keeps it from being a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters ('Code content to clean', 'Programming language'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the stripping action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 states a specific verb ('Strip') and resource ('comments, docstrings, whitespace, and sourcemaps from code files'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like image_ocr_shrink or summarize_text. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for cleaning code files, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention cases to avoid (e.g., when preserving comments is needed), so the agent must infer from the sibling list and schema.

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