Validate Footnotes

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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it returns a detailed report and listing specific checks. However, it does not explicitly state it does not modify the document or mention any other behavioral traits.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output details without superfluous words.

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 parameter, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description is fairly complete for purpose and output. However, missing parameter semantics and usage guidance reduce completeness.

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 single parameter 'filename' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it at all. Description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without information on what the parameter expects.

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 all footnotes in a document for coherence and compliance, listing specific issues like ID conflicts and orphaned content. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_footnote or delete_footnote.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like customize_footnote_style or search_and_replace.

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