validate_wpcodebox_snippet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool validates structure, but doesn't disclose what validation entails (e.g., syntax checks, scope compatibility, error handling), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 ('validate a snippet structure') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by specifying the target ('against WPCodebox requirements'), making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 complexity (5 parameters, validation logic) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what validation checks are performed, what the return value indicates (e.g., success/failure, error details), or behavioral traits. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand tool invocation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying validation involves these parameters. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without needing extra detail in the 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 verb 'validate' and the resource 'snippet structure', specifying it's against 'WPCodebox requirements'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'format_wpcodebox_snippet' by focusing on validation rather than formatting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_wpcodebox_guidelines'), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 when validation is needed (e.g., before saving or deploying snippets) or refer to sibling tools like 'format_wpcodebox_snippet' for complementary actions. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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