validate_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool validates (syntax errors, unknown directives, best practices) but doesn't describe the output format, error reporting details, or any behavioral traits like performance implications or validation scope. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and validation aspects.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a validation tool. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., error list, success status), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely returns validation results, this omission makes it inadequate for the agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'html' clearly documented as 'The HTML template to validate'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as formatting examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: validating a NoJS HTML template for syntax errors, unknown directives, and best practices. It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'NoJS HTML template', making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'explain_directive' or 'list_directives', which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'explain_directive' (which might explain errors) or 'list_directives' (which might list valid directives). This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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