jekyll_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 deliver real value: it declares the operation safe, states it does not execute arbitrary shell, and notes the return shape (structured errors and warnings). It omits the slower run_build side effect of writing build output and any permission prerequisites.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the checks, then the return contract and safety caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what is validated, the return shape (errors and warnings), and the safety boundary. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance among the many validation-adjacent siblings.

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% for the single optional boolean, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a mild hint ('optional Jekyll build') that maps to the same parameter the schema already documents, adding no syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('validate') and resource scope ('project-level'), enumerating what is checked: component structure, Liquid patterns, front matter. It implicitly separates itself from the component-scoped sibling jekyll_component_validate, though it never names that sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the broad pre-flight check, but the description never says when to prefer it over jekyll_doctor, jekyll_build, or jekyll_component_validate. 'Optional Jekyll build' hints at the build relationship but stops short of routing guidance.

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