validate_entry

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

Without annotations, the description adequately conveys that this tool performs read-only validation with no side effects. It lists return values but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, though it is implied.

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 succinct, using bullet points for parameters and return values. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format comprehensively. Given no output schema, including the return structure is beneficial. Minor omissions like error handling do not detract significantly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the content parameter as full file content with YAML frontmatter and listing allowed values for type (skill, agent, command, hook). With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is effective.

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 it validates a skill/agent/command markdown file against a marketplace schema, specifying the types of files and checks performed. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on validation, unlike tools like get_entry or check_compliance.

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 pre-submission validation, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like check_compliance. No alternative tool comparisons are provided, so usage context is implied only.

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