validate_multimodal_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic validation function without describing what 'supported' means (e.g., capability checks, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when validation fails). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely interfaces with external services.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value documentation in a standard format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, validation logic) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about what validation entails and error scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., model name patterns), constraints (e.g., valid ranges for counts), or how parameters interact (e.g., if provider affects model validation).

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 tool's purpose as validating if a multimodal request is supported, which is a specific verb (validate) applied to a specific resource (multimodal request). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_multimodal_response' or 'list_available_providers' beyond the validation focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationships to sibling tools like 'generate_multimodal_response' (which might require validation first) or 'list_available_providers' (which might help select a provider).

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