validate_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'validate' implies a read-only check, the description doesn't specify what happens during validation: whether it's a quick syntax check versus deep analysis, whether it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and clear schema documentation. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with context about what elements are being validated.

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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what validation entails, what 'correctness and best practices' means, what the output looks like, or how this differs from other element-related operations. Given the complexity implied by element validation and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (name, type with enum values, strict flag). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'correctness and best practices' means for different element types or what 'strict' validation entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'Validate an element for correctness and best practices' states a clear purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('element'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives among its 30+ siblings. It doesn't specify what kind of validation occurs or what makes it different from tools like 'check_github_auth' or 'get_element_details'.

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. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_element_details', 'find_similar_elements', 'create_element'), there's no indication of when validation is appropriate versus other operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is provided.

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