check

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 clearly discloses the return behavior (empty string or error message), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made or that the tool is side-effect-free, which would be a minor improvement.

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—and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. Ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no siblings), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and return value. However, it could mention that the tool does not alter any state or require specific permissions, which would fully round out the context.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the 'text' parameter. While the description implies the parameter is the mermaid diagram code, it adds no additional detail about format, constraints, or examples. The self-explanatory parameter name and context keep this from being a 2, but more detail would elevate it.

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: checking if text is a valid mermaid diagram. It specifies both the object (text) and the condition (valid mermaid diagram), and details the return value (empty string for valid, error message for invalid). This is specific 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?

Although there are no sibling tools, the description implicitly defines when to use this tool: when validation of mermaid diagram syntax is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear. A small deduction for lack of explicit usage guidance.

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