validate_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates for errors but doesn't describe what happens during validation—e.g., whether it returns detailed error messages, if it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Validate an Xray configuration for syntax and semantic errors.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 of validating configurations (which can involve detailed error reporting) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, error details) or any behavioral traits. For a validation tool, this omission makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to interpret results or handle errors.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'config' parameter documented as 'Xray configuration object to validate.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on the structure or format of the configuration object. Since the schema already provides adequate documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, reflecting that the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Validate an Xray configuration for syntax and semantic errors.' It specifies the verb (validate) and resource (Xray configuration) with the scope of checking both syntax and semantics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_client_config' or 'list_protocols', which serve different purposes rather than being validation alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the configuration should be pre-generated or if this is a standalone validation step. With siblings like 'generate_client_config' that might produce configurations, there's no indication of how validation fits into the workflow or when to choose validation over generation.

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