data_uuid_validator

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

Without annotations, the description details what the tool detects (version, variant, special UUIDs, timestamps) and the RFCs followed. It does not cover error handling or output format, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 relatively concise at two sentences, but includes unnecessary 'Menu ID: uuid_validator.' which adds no value. It front-loads the purpose and key capabilities.

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?

The description mentions many detection features but omits output structure and does not explain how the parameters affect behavior. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete, though it points to describe_tool for more detail.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters ('operation', 'input'). It provides no guidance on valid values, format, or constraints, leaving the agent with no semantic context beyond raw schema.

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 it's a strict UUID/GUID validator that detects version, variant, Nil, Max, and decodes timestamps per RFC standards. It specifies supported versions (v1/v3/v4/v5/v6/v7/v8), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_uuid (generation) and conversion tools.

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 implicitly states it's for validating UUIDs, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. It references describe_tool for full guidance, which offloads usage context. No exclusions or conditional usage are provided.

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