validate_buffer

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

With no annotations, the description implies the tool is non-destructive (linting), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects. The output schema exists but the description does not elaborate on results.

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 of 16 words, front-loaded with the action 'Lint,' and contains no unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage timing. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., buffer must exist) but is otherwise complete for a simple linting tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable as there are none.

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 action (lint), the resource (working buffer), and the target (control schema). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like push_buffer and save_buffer by indicating it should be used before them.

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 says 'before you push or save it,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like validate_layout.

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