validate_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a strong job: it discloses the exact return object {valid, root, schema, errors}, the additional semantic checks for LD documents, the reliance on the installed XSD/SrcXmlSchema, and the CE_MCP_SCHEMA_DIR override. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the validate-and-return framing makes the non-destructive nature clear enough.

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?

Five sentences, all information-dense and logically ordered: when to use, what it returns, LD-specific checks, limits, and environment override. No filler; it is only slightly long because the tool genuinely has multiple nuances to convey.

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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essential context: input target, authoritative grammar, return keys, validation coverage boundaries, and schema-folder override. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on how to choose or combine file_path versus xml_content.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance. It never clarifies whether file_path and xml_content are alternatives, whether one is preferred, what happens if both or neither are supplied, or how inline XML content should be structured. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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+resource: validate XML against the installed XSD grammar. It explicitly positions itself BEFORE import_xml/build_project and explains that it catches structural errors instantly while other semantics remain with build_project, so it is clearly distinguishable from the relevant sibling tools.

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?

Tells the agent when to use this tool ('BEFORE import_xml / build_project') and defines its scope: structural errors plus two LD-specific semantic rules. It also explicitly says what it does NOT catch — FBD pin geometry and type compatibility — and names build_project as the final oracle, giving clear routing guidance.

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