validate_css_selector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only broadly mentions checking syntax, performance, and match results. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not use bullet points or separate sections to highlight different aspects of validation, making it less scannable.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The agent lacks details about what the validation returns, how to interpret results, or what the optional parameters control.

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 only 33% (only 'selector' parameter has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on the other two parameters ('suggestions', 'performanceCheck'), failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 validates CSS selectors in terms of syntax, performance, and match results. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('CSS selector'), and is well-differentiated from sibling tools which are mostly about animations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage for CSS selector validation, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest related tools like browser compatibility checkers.

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