validate_markdown

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description reveals that validation is cheap, returns a green/amber/red status plus detected features, and helps avoid costly conversion failures. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, bulleted usage guidelines, and a return summary. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, what it detects, and what it returns. No missing critical information.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning to parameters. It does not elaborate on the content or filename beyond what the schema already specifies, but the return value description compensates slightly.

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 'Pre-flight markdown validation BEFORE conversion' and lists specific issues caught (malformed tables, unclosed code fences, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_document, which performs the actual conversion.

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 explicitly provides three scenarios when to call the tool proactively: before converting a long document, after broken output, and when verifying self-generated markdown. It contrasts with the cost of a failed conversion, offering clear guidance.

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