validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses the read-only nature (parse without rendering audio) and describes the outputs. However, it does not clarify potential side effects or permissions, though none are expected for a validation tool. The term 'schedule info' is somewhat vague.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one for the operation and one for outputs. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no redundant text.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input, operation, and outputs adequately. However, 'schedule info' is vague and could be expanded for clarity. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'utterance', and the description does not add significant new meaning beyond 'klattsch phoneme string'. It reinforces context but lacks format examples or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already describes the parameter.

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 core action (parse a klattsch phoneme string), what it does not do (without rendering audio), and its outputs (schedule info, duration, warnings). It effectively distinguishes it from siblings like speak (audio rendering) and list_phonemes (listing).

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 implies usage for validation without audio, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like speak or text_to_phonemes. No exclusions or sibling names are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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