Validate CERIF 1.6 XML file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from the local filesystem and validates, implying a non-mutating operation. However, it does not explain the outcome of validation (e.g., error reporting, return format) or any side effects beyond 'reads', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and object, and the second sentence provides a usage scenario. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, input source, and typical usage. It doesn't specify what the validation returns, but the mention of 'schema confirmation' implies a result. Since the tool is simple, the completeness is sufficient, but it could add a note about success/failure output for full clarity.

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 coverage is 100% and the description's phrase 'local filesystem' reinforces the path parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, which already states the path is an absolute path, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Reads', 'validates') and names the exact resource (XML file against CERIF 1.6 schema). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'local filesystem', which sets it apart from a likely generic validate_xml tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the agent has written a CERIF file to disk and needs schema confirmation.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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