validate_paraids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks uniqueness across multiple document parts and enforces hex value constraints (< 0x80000000). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, though it is implied by 'Check'.

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 consists of two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose. There is no superfluous text; every sentence provides necessary context about the validation scope and constraints.

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 has no parameters, a simple validation purpose, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description fully covers what the tool does, where it applies, and the constraints it enforces. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter information, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.

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 verb 'Check', the resource 'paraId uniqueness', and the scope 'across all document parts'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like validate_endnotes or validate_footnotes by specifying the target (paraIds) and the domain (document.xml, footnotes.xml, headers, footers, comments).

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 implies usage when validation of paragraph IDs is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other validation tools (e.g., validate_endnotes). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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