pbi_validate_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool does not perform disk writes and does not require an extract folder, and lists the return values (payload size, schema issues, allowed keys). This is sufficient for understanding the tool's safe, read-only nature.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: validation purpose, return values, and behavioral characteristics. No wasted 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, clear return values), the description is complete. It mentions return components without needing to detail output schema, and provides essential behavioral context. It covers the tool's functionality adequately.

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 'theme_json_path' is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not add details about the expected format or type of path (e.g., local file vs. URI). While the purpose is clear, more guidance would be helpful.

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 it performs 'Dry-run validation of a user-supplied theme JSON file', using a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('theme JSON file'). It distinguishes from siblings like pbi_apply_theme by emphasizing 'Dry-run' and 'no disk write'.

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 clarifies when to use this tool (before applying a theme, for validation) and what it does not do ('no disk write', 'no extract folder required'). It implicitly contrasts with siblings but could explicitly mention alternatives like pbi_apply_theme.

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