validate-prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (warnings for anti-patterns, suggestions for improvements) and, given there is no output schema, that is genuine added value. However it never confirms the operation is non-mutating, states failure/error behavior, or says whether validation blocks anything.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior second. Nothing is redundant, and the second sentence earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 single-parameter, read-style validation tool with no output schema, the description covers both what it does and what it returns, which is most of what an agent needs. It could be fuller on failure modes and on how the prompt input should be sourced.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'prompt' as the custom prompt text to validate. The description adds no format, size, or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (validates) and resource (custom prompt) and names the standard being checked (MDMA conventions), which distinguishes it from the get-prompt/build-system-prompt siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 — call it to check a prompt for anti-patterns — but never states when to use it versus alternatives like get-prompt or build-system-prompt, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from the verb but not spelled out.

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