validate_pacs002

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that validation is against XSD, it reports all violations (not just first), and provides line/column/path information. It could mention if the operation is read-only, but the behavior is well-explained.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first states the primary function, the second adds the critical differentiator. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has a single parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential behavior and distinguishes it from siblings. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 schema already describes the 'xml' parameter fully, so the description adds value by clarifying the validation context (XSD) and output format. This goes beyond mere schema 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 validates a pacs.002.001.10 message against its XSD, and specifically contrasts with the sibling parse_pacs002, which stops at the first error. This makes the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool instead of parse_pacs002 (to get all violations in one pass). It does not discuss other alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling context makes usage clear.

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