Validate an addon .toc manifest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what is validated and mentions that some directives are 'silently dropped' by the client, implying the tool surfaces warnings. However, it does not describe the output format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. For a validation tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid scope of checks and a clear usage context. It misses only the return format or outcome expectations, but given the tool's nature, this is not a major gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The tool description adds overall context about validation scope but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific verb 'Validate' with the resource '.toc manifest', and enumerates distinct checks (interface version, flavor suffix, directives, SavedVariables, file lists). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wow_lua_lint and wow_xml_validate, which target other file types.

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: 'Run this whenever an addon fails to load or shows as out of date.' This gives a clear trigger context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but that is less critical given the specialized purpose.

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