files_validate_yaml_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive ('without saving') and describes the return type. While it could mention whether it validates against a specific schema or handles empty input, the core transparency is adequate.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. The most critical information (action, no side effects, result) is front-loaded and concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, safety, and outcome. The output schema handles return value details, so no need for further elaboration.

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 only parameter 'content' has zero schema description, but the tool description clarifies it is 'YAML content' to validate. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, fully explaining the parameter's role.

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 action (validate), resource (YAML content), and outcome (returns parsed result or error). It distinguishes itself from sibling file tools like files_read_config_file or files_write_config_file by specifying 'without saving' and focusing on validation.

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 verifying YAML syntax before saving, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reading a file and validating manually). No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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