Validate a generated LimeSurvey survey theme

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds substantial value beyond them: what valid=true means, the exact error families (archive safety, oversized names, malformed config.xml, missing metadata/views), the fact that archive checks stop before decompression, and the semantics of 'policy:'-prefixed warnings. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the pass/fail contract before the long catalogue of checks, and every clause carries distinct information. The single dense paragraph is information-rich but would scan better as a short list; no sentence is wasted.

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 validator whose annotations cover safety and whose output schema covers return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what 'valid' means, the classes of failure, which conditions are fatal vs policy warnings, and the supplementary returned field. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by locating the input ('a ZIP inside LIMESURVEY_THEME_DIR'), which is the key semantic the bare schema string 'file_name' lacks. It stops short of stating the extension or naming conventions expected.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (a generated LimeSurvey survey theme ZIP in LIMESURVEY_THEME_DIR), and immediately defines the output semantics (valid=true means LimeSurvey imports and uses the package). This clearly separates it from generate_survey_theme, which produces the package, and assign_survey_theme, which applies it.

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 establishes context and sequencing — it is the pre-import gate, and warnings should be 'reviewed before the import.' It does not explicitly name generate_survey_theme/assign_survey_theme as the alternatives, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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