validate_note

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

The description discloses the checks performed and the output (report of problems). With no annotations, it clearly indicates a read-only validation with no destructive side effects. However, it does not specify the report format or behavior for non-existent notes.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first lists all validation points, the second states the output. Every phrase is meaningful, making it efficient and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks details on the exact format of the report and fails to address edge cases (e.g., missing note).

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'name'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Nombre de la nota sin extensión .md', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 note structure with specific checks (frontmatter, 'Ver también' section, hashtags, wikilinks) and returns a report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note or audit_tags by focusing on comprehensive structural auditing.

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 implies usage for verifying note structure per vault protocol but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as audit_tags for tag-only checks. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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