validator_validate_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states validation and return type, but omits side effects, authorization needs, or that it is read-only. The description also claims acceptance of lists while the schema only specifies string, creating inconsistency.

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 short but wastes words on a redundant '[validator]' prefix. It front-loads the core action but lacks detail. Could be more concise and informative.

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 description mentions the return format but fails to explain critical aspects like what happens when min_length or max_length are null, or whether the validation is inclusive. The contradiction between accepting 'list' and the schema's string type suggests incompleteness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not describe 'value', 'min_length', or 'max_length' beyond their names. The mention of 'string or list' contradicts the schema's string-only type for value.

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 clearly states it validates string or list length, distinguishing it from sibling validators like validate_email or validate_ip. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not specify that validation checks against min and max bounds, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other validators or alternative approaches. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or examples of appropriate usage.

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