Validate CityJSON syntax and schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It disloses the use of the official cjval validator and enumerates the checks performed, which is useful. It does not state whether any state is modified, whether external resources are needed, or what the result/returned information looks like, leaving the behavioral picture partially incomplete.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the operative verb and resource and structures the validation scope in a colon list. Every clause adds information and nothing is redundant.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple validation tool with two parameters, and the dataset_id schema covers the core input. But without an output schema it does not describe what the caller receives (e.g., pass/fail, list of errors), nor does it clarify how it relates to the cityjson_validate sibling, which an agent would likely need when selecting among the validation-related tools.

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 already documents dataset_id well as a handle returned by specific tools. The description adds context about extensions but does not clarify the format, source, or use of the extension_schemas array, whose schema description is still missing. At 50% schema coverage the description compensates only partly.

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'), a concrete resource ('a dataset'), and names the exact validation scope: JSON syntax, CityJSON schemas, extensions, and structural checks. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'cityjson_validate', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for full cjval-based validation of a CityJSON dataset, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as cityjson_validate_geometry or cityjson_validate. The intended usage is inferable, not stated.

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