pgroonga_validate_normalization_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without modifying data,' which is a key safety guarantee. It does not disclose other behaviors like required permissions, but the main risk of mutation is directly addressed, so this is strong transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Validate') and adds a safety qualifier, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and a short description, the tool is adequately specified. The description covers the purpose and non-mutating behavior, and the output schema likely documents the report structure. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, but that's a separate dimension.

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% for the 'index' parameter, and the description does not explain what this parameter refers to. It does not compensate for the lack of schema description, leaving the agent to infer that 'index' identifies the normalization profile to validate.

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 the specific verb 'Validate' with clear resources ('dictionary mappings' and 'normalization hazards'), and the phrase 'without modifying data' adds a non-destructive scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pgroonga_list_normalization_profiles or pgroonga_normalize_text, which perform different actions.

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 provides clear context for use: it is a validation tool that does not modify data, which implies when to use it versus tools that alter or list data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the non-destructive validation context is unambiguous enough for a 4.

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