validate_sieve_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool does not save, indicating a non-destructive read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on validation failure (e.g., error response) or any other side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 20 words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes an args section for the parameter. No extraneous information.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter, and main behavior. However, it could mention error handling or validation output format.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'content' as 'The Sieve script source to validate,' adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. This is sufficient for a simple parameter.

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: 'Validate Sieve script syntax without saving.' This uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (Sieve script), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sieve_script or update_sieve_script which perform saving actions.

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 implies usage when you want to check syntax before saving, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance like 'use before creating a script' or mention of alternatives.

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