validate_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns violations with severity, line numbers, and fix suggestions, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or any limitations like input size constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently details the return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context by specifying the return format (violations with severity, line numbers, fix suggestions). However, it could be more complete by mentioning error cases or linking to the coding standards referenced.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'code' should be formatted or when to choose specific 'fileType' values.

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 specific action ('validate code against Magento 2 coding standards') and resource ('code'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_security' or 'explain_rule' by focusing on standards validation rather than security checks or rule explanations.

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 implies usage when code needs validation against Magento 2 standards, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_rules' or 'get_magento_pattern'. It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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