validate_pacs008

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: validation against XSD, returning all violations with location details, and not stopping at the first error. Does not mention side effects or statelessness, but validation implies read-only.

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, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence adding unique value and differentiation. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema existing, the description covers essential aspects: validation scope, report contents, and error reporting behavior. Could mention that it only performs schema validation (not business rules), but the XSD reference implies that.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool validates a specific message type (pacs.008.001.08) against its XSD. It distinguishes itself from the sibling parse_pacs008 by highlighting that it returns all violations rather than stopping at the first error.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with parse_pacs008, guiding users when to choose this tool for comprehensive validation. No explicit exclusion for other siblings, but the message type differentiation in the name suffices.

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