Validate a CRUMB design

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral detail: it does not launch the game, and it describes the return semantics for a bad design ('ok=true and data.valid=false'). This gives the agent insight into what to expect from the tool's execution, beyond what annotations alone provide.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase earns its place. No redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, key constraint, and a notable output behavior.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is complete. It states the tool performs validation, does not launch the game, and clarifies the return behavior for invalid designs. The tool's complexity is low, and nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves; it focuses on the tool's overall behavior. The mention of return values is output-related, not parameter-related.

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 function: 'Performs XML and CRUMB structural checks without launching the game.' This identifies a specific verb (performs checks) and resource (CRUMB design), and distinguishes it from siblings like crumb_analyze_design or crumb_inspect_design by emphasizing no game launch. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need XML/structural validation without launching the game. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The 'without launching the game' context is a strong differentiator but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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