list_available_validators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation and provides useful context about validator usage through the example. It does not explicitly mention non-mutating behavior, but the verb 'list' makes it obvious.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by brief context and a relevant example. Every sentence earns its place, and the example illustrates validator usage without bloat.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns, what validators are, and an example of their use. It is complete for its complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds useful context by explaining what validators are and showing an example, which compensates for the lack of parameter information.

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 lists all available clearskies validator types with a short description, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'validator types'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities or provide detailed info.

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 explains that validators are used to validate model data before saving and can be attached to columns, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_validator_info, but the usage context is clear.

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