validate_scenario_yaml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions validating 'structure for required fields', but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or any side effects. The behavioral context is minimal.

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, short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. No redundant information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include return behavior without losing conciseness.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain validation outcomes (e.g., returns errors or passes). It also does not clarify whether it parses YAML or checks only required field presence. Compared to sibling tools, the context is insufficient.

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% (the sole parameter 'scenario_yaml' has a description). The tool description adds little beyond restating the purpose; it does not elaborate on format expectations or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 validates 'CrowdSec scenario YAML structure for required fields', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lint_scenario_yaml (which likely focuses on syntax/style) and test_scenario (behavioral testing).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from lint_scenario_yaml or test_scenario. The description only states what it does, not the context of use.

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