validate_spec

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 discloses that strict mode checks Node/bundle/Playwright/Chromium availability and renderability, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, side effects (beyond not rendering), or what 'valid' means, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure for a read-only validation tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a clear qualifier. Every word earns its place, and the strict-mode nuance is added without bloat.

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?

The tool has a potentially complex open-ended spec parameter and no annotations, but the description covers the core purpose and the strict-mode behavior. It doesn't describe what a valid spec looks like or what the validation result contains, though an output schema exists (which may cover return structure). For an agent to call it confidently, more detail on expected spec shape and output format would be helpful.

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 description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'strict' parameter's effect, which adds meaning beyond the schema's boolean type. However, the 'spec' parameter is described only as 'chart spec' without any hint of required fields or structure, leaving the open-ended object poorly documented.

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 states a specific verb (validate) and resource (chart spec), and explicitly distinguishes it from rendering by saying 'without rendering it'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like render_chart, making its purpose 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?

The phrase 'without rendering it' clearly signals when to use this tool (validation) versus when not to (rendering), and the mention of strict mode adds context for host-availability checks. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the distinction is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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