validate_mcp_tool_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs validation and returns a 'ValidationResult with any issues found,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or what constitutes a valid 'MCP context' in the parameters. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, bullet-point-like 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, and uses clear, efficient language. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a validation tool. The front-loaded purpose statement helps, though the formatting could be more polished (e.g., using proper markdown).

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 complexity (validation with 3 parameters, nested objects in schema, and an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters and the return value, and an output schema exists, so it needn't detail return values further. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks behavioral context like error cases or validation standards specifics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this nature.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description includes an 'Args' section listing parameters: 'tool_name', 'tool_description', 'parameters', and 'ctx', and a 'Returns' section explaining the output. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, covering all 3 required parameters and the output. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats (e.g., JSON Schema specifics for 'parameters') or context requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 an MCP tool definition against standards' and specifies 'Checks if the tool follows Darwin platform MCP tool design standards.' This provides a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('MCP tool definition'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_agent_card' or 'validate_azure_resource_name' which validate different types of resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_standards_summary', 'list_standards_categories', or 'search_standards' that might be related to standards, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for validation. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose statement.

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