Validate style

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context about the output format ('lists every problem, each with the path to the property'), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention any limitations or side effects, but given the read-only nature and the output schema, this is sufficient.

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 core purpose and output, and the second gives usage guidance and input options. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, an output schema (which explains return values), and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage trigger, and input options. It doesn't mention version-specific validation or potential limitations, but these are not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly. The output schema handles return details.

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 100%, so each parameter (url, path, style) is already documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level summary ('Pass the style as an object, a URL or a file path') that maps to the three parameters, but doesn't provide any additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. This meets the baseline for high 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 states a specific verb ('Checks'), a specific resource ('MapLibre style'), and the standard it validates against ('MapLibre Style Specification'). It also clarifies the output ('lists every problem, each with the path to the property'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_style or compare_styles. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from others.

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 usage context: 'Run it after editing a style.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger is specific enough. Sibling tools have distinct purposes, so the lack of explicit 'when not to use' is acceptable given the clear context.

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