mdma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates and returns warnings/suggestions, which clarifies it's a read-only analysis tool (not destructive). However, it omits details like error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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's moderate complexity (validation with conventions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of warnings/suggestions), error cases, or MDMA convention specifics, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 the single parameter 'prompt' as 'The custom prompt text to validate'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('validates'), resource ('a custom prompt'), and purpose ('against MDMA conventions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get-prompt' or 'list-docs' which retrieve rather than validate. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 for validating custom prompts against MDMA conventions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-prompt' or 'build-system-prompt'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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