validate_recurrence_rule

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Parsing only; nothing is scheduled,' indicating no side effects. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean vs errors) or what 'supported' entails.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes value.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter, the description is nearly complete. The missing output schema is a gap, but the context signal of 'no output schema' is noted. The 'nothing is scheduled' detail adds important context.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'rule' with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic info beyond the schema's example and format specification.

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 validates iCalendar recurrence rules (RRULE) for validity and support, and emphasizes it is parsing-only with no scheduling. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'explain_recurrence_rule' and 'next_recurrence_occurrences'.

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 the tool is for validation via 'Check whether ... is valid', but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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