validate_page

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the checks performed but does not mention return format, error handling, or if the tool has side effects. As a validation tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 concise sentences: first lists all checks, second states invocation context. No redundancy, front-loaded with specific actions.

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?

Describes inputs and usage context well, but lacks information about output (e.g., does it return a boolean, error messages, or details?) and lacks behavioral transparency (no annotations). For a validation tool, return value is important for agents to act on results.

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%. Description adds meaning to the 'checks' parameter by mapping each enum value to a natural language check (e.g., 'no-xml-tags' corresponds to '检查是否残留 XML 占位符'). This goes beyond the schema which only lists enum literals.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates generated pages by checking for XML placeholders, icon rendering, image references, and HTML validity. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., assemble_page) by being the final quality check before delivery.

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?

Description specifies 'before delivery' as the usage context. It implicitly excludes earlier stages by stating it's a final check, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.

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