validate_character_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, what validation entails (e.g., returns errors, warnings), or any side effects (e.g., logs results). The term 'validate' suggests non-destructive checking, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, leaving gaps 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (validation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits details on behavior, output format, or error handling. With schema coverage at 100%, it compensates partially, but more context would improve completeness for a validation tool.

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 fully documents the parameter 'name_or_id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter identifies a character, which the schema already states. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles parameter semantics 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 action ('validate') and target ('character against loaded rulebooks'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_character' or 'update_character' by focusing on validation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't specify what 'validate' entails (e.g., checking rules compliance, completeness), keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for validation after rulebooks are loaded, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ensure rulebooks are loaded first) or compare to tools like 'check_sheet_changes' or 'sync_all_sheets'. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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