validate_stylus_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the validation method ('via cargo check'), output format ('structured errors with Stylus-specific fix guidance'), and a requirement ('Requires Docker'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like resource usage or execution time limits.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core function, second provides usage timing, third describes output and requirement. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does, when to use it, and behavioral requirements. However, without an output schema, it could more explicitly describe the return structure (error codes, line numbers, fixes) or error handling for edge cases.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain code format expectations or Cargo.toml template details). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Compile-check Stylus Rust code via cargo check') and resource ('Stylus Rust code'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_stylus_code' (which creates code) and 'get_stylus_context' (which retrieves context). It explicitly mentions the tool's function of returning structured errors with fix guidance.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use AFTER generating code to verify correctness'), which clearly differentiates it from code generation siblings. It also implies an alternative (not using it after generation would lead to unverified code), though it doesn't name specific alternative tools.

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