validate_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that validation is against a CEM spec and returns pass/fail with issues and suggestions, but does not clarify key behaviors such as whether it requires a loaded library (parameter libraryId hints at it) or if it modifies state. It also doesn't explain default library behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the action, second lists specific checks, third describes output. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, many sibling tools, no annotations), the description provides the core functionality but lacks context on dependencies (e.g., requirement to load a library first) and integration with other tools. The output description is minimal but sufficient for a validation tool.

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 is already described. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond listing them. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing 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 ('validates') and the resource ('proposed HTML usage of a web component against its CEM spec'). It lists specific checks (unknown attributes, deprecated properties, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_html_usage which likely perform simpler validation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_html_usage, validate_cem). The description implies use for spec-based validation but does not state prerequisites (e.g., library must be loaded) or exclusions.

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