Oh My Posh Validator

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'validate' and 'against the schema' suggest a read-only check, but the description does not disclose output format, error semantics, or explicitly confirm that no modifications are made. It adds context about supported formats but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists supported formats. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the validation result or behavior on invalid configs would make it more 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 100%, with both 'content' and 'format' already described in the schema. The description's mention of supported formats simply mirrors the schema's enum, adding little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Validate an oh-my-posh configuration against the schema.' It clearly states the tool's core function and lists supported formats (JSON, YAML, TOML), which also differentiates it from the sibling validate_segment tool.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a full oh-my-posh configuration needs validation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or refer to the sibling validate_segment, so it misses the opportunity to provide exclusionary guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that validation happens against a schema, but offers no details about return values, error handling, whether it modifies anything, or how the auto-format detection works. This is a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and use case.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature and complete schema, the description covers purpose and usage context adequately. However, without annotations or an output schema, it fails to specify the outcome of validation (e.g., success/failure signals), which is essential for an agent to act on the result.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for both 'format' and 'content', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers, but it also doesn't need to.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') with a clear resource ('segment snippet') and context ('against the oh-my-posh schema'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by focusing on 'individual prompt segments' rather than a full configuration.

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 clearly identifies when this tool is useful: 'before adding them to a configuration.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or the alternative validate_config, even though the sibling tool name implies that distinction.

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