Valida uno snippet HTML (loop di conformità)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the check categories (patterns, accessibility, Web Component suggestions), providing a reasonable preview of what happens. However, it doesn't state whether the tool modifies anything, whether it returns detailed reports versus simple pass/fail, or whether it auto-corrects or merely suggests corrections for the agent to apply.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence packs purpose plus four concrete check categories, the second provides actionable timing guidance. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 single-parameter validation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema requirement (the description omits return-value details but this tool's outputs—reports/suggestions—are somewhat self-evident from its validation function), the description is complete. The usage timing guidance adds practical value. One could argue for a slightly richer description of what the feedback looks like, but the core validation scope is well covered.

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% with a single 'snippet' parameter already documented as 'Lo snippet HTML da validare.' The description adds minimal extra meaning—it clarifies the snippet should be validated for specific pattern categories and accessibility, but the schema alone already explains what the parameter is. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 verb (controlla/validate) and resource (snippet HTML), and enumerates the specific checks performed: non-conformant patterns (Tailwind/Bootstrap generic/inline handlers), basic accessibility rules, and suggestions for AI-first Web Components. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on validation rather than listing, searching, or fetching components/recipes.

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 gives clear timing guidance: 'Chiama questo tool DOPO aver generato markup, per autocorreggerti' (call this AFTER generating markup, to self-correct). This establishes a clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the timing context strongly implies it complements the component/recipe lookup tools in the sibling set.

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