validate-api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the checking order (node_modules before docs index), suggesting a read-only operation, but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or how it handles errors. This is partially transparent but incomplete.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fast validation') and efficiently conveys the search order. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted 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 validation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and search strategy but omits the return format (e.g., boolean or diagnostics) and does not explain how 'cwd' affects the search. Given the absence of an output schema, these details would be valuable for complete guidance.

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 67%, with descriptions for 'symbol' and 'cwd' but not 'library' (only an enum). The description indirectly explains the role of library and symbol by mentioning node_modules and docs index, but does not explicitly elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. It adds some context beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing library description.

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 primary action: 'Fast validation if a symbol exists'. It specifies the resource (symbol) and scope (node_modules first then docs index), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-docs or resolve-library. The verb 'validation' is specific and unambiguous.

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 when a quick existence check is needed, contrasting with more extensive search tools like search-docs or get-library-docs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the 'fast validation' phrasing sets clear context. No exclusions are provided, but the use case is evident.

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