validate_anime_code

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 states what the tool detects via AST but omits critical behavioral traits: whether it requires imported dependencies, how it handles invalid input, whether it returns errors or warnings with line numbers, performance/rate limits on large files, or whether analysis is static-only. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, these gaps are significant.

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 action ('Valida un fragmento de código JavaScript/TypeScript usando AST') and then enumerates the specific issues detected. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the validation returns (errors, warnings, severity levels), how to interpret results, whether validation is syntactic or semantic beyond the listed checks, or any prerequisites (e.g., anime.js version context). The agent lacks enough information to use the tool confidently or interpret its output.

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%: the single 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Código fuente de JavaScript, TypeScript o JSX que contiene animaciones de Anime.js.' The description adds no further detail about the parameter's expected format, size limits, or handling of non-Anime.js code. Per rules, high schema coverage yields a baseline 3 when the description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Valida') and resource ('fragmento de código JavaScript/TypeScript usando AST'), and enumerates exactly what it detects: v3-obsolete syntax, reflow/layout-thrashing properties, and memory leaks. This clearly distinguishes it from documentation-oriented siblings like search_anime_docs or get_migration_guide. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative for validation tasks, keeping it just below a 5.

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 you need to validate code for v3 syntax, reflow issues, or memory leaks) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no note about applicable framework contexts. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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