epl_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the core behavior: it returns a structured diagnostic report with findings, positions, and severity as JSON. This goes beyond merely restating the tool name and informs the agent of the return format, though it does not explicitly address side effects or error behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource and immediately stating the output format. Every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter lint/validate tool with a fully documented input and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the input, the operation, and the structured JSON output. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter ('Raw EPL/EPL2 code') with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The description does not repeat or add parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Lint/validate') and clearly identifies the resource ('EPL/EPL2 label code') and the deliverable (a structured diagnostics report as JSON). It differentiates from sibling tools like zpl_validate and tspl_validate by naming the exact language family.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: validating EPL/EPL2 label code and receiving structured diagnostics. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the language-specific resource makes the appropriate selection unambiguous.

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