jekyll_component_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares the operation is read-only and states that it returns structured errors and warnings. It does not describe severity semantics beyond 'errors and warnings', whether validation is partial (e.g., stops at first failure), or what happens for a nonexistent component, but for a low-risk read-only check this is largely adequate.

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?

Two sentences, both information-dense: the first front-loads the enumerated checks, the second covers return shape and the read-only guarantee. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, that output is structured errors/warnings, and that it is read-only. The main omission is when this tool should be preferred over the sibling validators, which is the only thing an agent is still missing.

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?

There is one parameter ('name') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format hints (e.g., does it accept a path, a slug, or a nested component path), so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 pairs a specific verb (validate) with a specific resource (a component) and even enumerates the check categories performed: file existence, Liquid syntax, SCSS presence, documentation, accessibility hints, parameter consistency. Scope (single component) implicitly separates it from the project-level jekyll_validate and jekyll_doctor, though those siblings are never named.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool versus jekyll_validate, jekyll_doctor, or jekyll_build, all of which could plausibly overlap. The only usage signal is the implicit 'validate one component', leaving the agent to infer pre-edit vs post-edit timing and the boundary with the project-wide validator.

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