validate_yaml

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

With no annotations provided, the description is entirely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It states it reports errors but fails to explain how (e.g., return format, exceptions). It also omits mention of side effects, permissions, or the unexplained api_key parameter, which may be required for validation.

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 relatively concise (one sentence plus an Args list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is incomplete, lacking explanation for api_key and the return format. It could be improved without being much longer.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and a second undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the validation results format, does not handle the api_key parameter, and provides no usage context relative to siblings. The tool's low complexity means a brief description could suffice, but current version misses key details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes the content parameter ('YAML string to validate') in an Args block, adding some meaning. However, the api_key parameter is completely undocumented, leaving its purpose unclear. With two parameters, only one is explained.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Validate YAML syntax and report any errors.' It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (YAML syntax), and naturally distinguishes from siblings like convert_yaml_json (conversion) and merge_yaml (merging). The distinction from lint_yaml is implicit but clear enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lint_yaml or convert_yaml_json. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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