validate_caddyfile_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior 'without loading it', indicating no side effects on current config. However, it does not describe error handling, return values, or what happens on invalid syntax. Since an output schema exists but is not shown, the description adds some behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and key qualifier. Every word earns its place, with zero unnecessary detail.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states purpose and side-effect behavior. It could mention that validation results are returned, but the output schema likely covers that. Slightly lacking in explaining error behavior, but overall adequate.

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 has no descriptions for its single parameter (`caddyfile`), and coverage is 0%. The description explicitly says 'against Caddyfile text', which clearly conveys that the parameter is the Caddyfile content. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though it could be more explicit about format.

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 runs `caddy validate` against Caddyfile text, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like `adapt_caddyfile_text` and `load_config` by emphasizing it does not load the config.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: validating Caddyfile text before loading. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5. The 'without loading it' implies a safe pre-check, which is useful.

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