validate_visual_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns non-fatal warnings, lists the warning types, and clarifies that warnings are advisory, not errors, due to custom visuals and newer properties. It also implies no side effects by stating it does not apply the format. This is excellent transparency.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose and non-application, second explains the parameter shape, third lists return type, and fourth clarifies advisory semantics. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 validation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (warnings), the categories of warnings, and how to interpret them (advised, not errors). It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the formatJson shape already in the schema and adds minimal extra meaning. It does link to 'set_visual_format shape', but this does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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: to validate a formatJson against a registry for a given visualType. It uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource, and distinguishes itself from applying tools by explicitly noting 'WITHOUT applying it'. This differentiates it from siblings like set_visual_format.

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 tool's use case is implied strongly: it is for validating formatJson before applying it, and the 'WITHOUT applying it' phrasing contrasts with applying tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not scenarios, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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