art.validate_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Validates... and returns errors found' implies a non-mutating operation, but it never explicitly states there are no side effects, doesn't describe the shape of a successful return, and doesn't reveal whether all errors are collected or it fails fast.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Each phrase earns its place: 'validates' states the action, 'active style configuration' narrows the scope, and 'returns any errors found' tells the agent what to expect.

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 zero-parameter tool the bar is low, but a validation tool would benefit from stating what 'valid' means, whether the operation is read-only, and what the caller should do with the errors. The word 'active' also raises an unanswered question — is there state involved that the agent should know about?

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing material for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies here — nothing is missing since there is nothing to document.

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 provides a clear verb (validates), a specific resource (active style configuration), and the return type (errors). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like art.get_style, art.qa.rule, or art.get_style_rules — an agent must infer why validate_style is the right choice over those.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to choose this tool over its many siblings. No when-to-use context, no exclusionary statements (e.g., 'use art.qa.gate for CI checks'), and no mention of prerequisites or ordering (e.g., 'validates the config as loaded by art.get_style').

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