Validate interface XML

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses specific behaviors: it checks for unknown elements/attributes, nesting, enum values, and structural issues. It also highlights that errors are otherwise invisible, which is meaningful context beyond a generic 'validate' statement.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with useful information. No fluff or repetition; the first sentence explains scope, the second provides usage rationale.

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 what, why, and when for this simple validation tool. Minor gaps: it doesn't describe the return format (no output schema) or clarify that at least one parameter must be supplied, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, notably not clarifying the relationship between 'xml' and 'path' (e.g., whether they are alternatives or combined).

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 'Validate WoW interface XML against Blizzard's own UI.xsd' and lists specific error types it catches, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wow_lua_lint and wow_toc_validate.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Run this on every XML file an addon loads' and explains why (the client silently ignores mistakes), giving clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions.

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