validate-pom-slide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (syntax checking) but does not mention side effects, return values, or error handling. As a validation tool, it likely has no destructive side effects, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving a gap in transparency.

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 focused sentence that conveys the tool's optional nature, the timing, and the purpose. It is front-loaded with the optional marker and successfully communicates the value without 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 the simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential context of when to use it, but it does not explain what the tool returns or how the validation result is communicated. This is a noticeable gap for a validation tool, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates the severity.

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%, and the parameter 'xml' is well-described in the schema as 'POM形式のXML文字列'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool validates POM-format XML for syntax errors, specifying both the resource (POM XML) and the action (check). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_powerpoint and get-pom-guide by focusing on validation before PowerPoint generation.

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 states when to use the tool: after creating POM XML and before generating PowerPoint. This provides clear contextual usage. It does not name alternatives but the timing guidance makes the intended workflow evident.

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