Validate a segment snippet against the oh-my-posh schema. Useful for validating individual prompt segments before adding them to a configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | The format of the segment (auto-detect if not specified) | auto |
| content | Yes | The segment content as a string (JSON, YAML, or TOML) |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct validation scope: one for full configurations, one for individual segment snippets. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the two.
Both tools follow a consistent validate_ noun pattern with snake_case, making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the count is slightly below the typical well-scoped range, but it is appropriate for the focused purpose of validating oh-my-posh configurations and segments.
The tool set covers the core validation needs: full configuration files and individual segment snippets. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.
