stellaris-validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with open-world semantics. The description adds valuable context about checking 'validity in the latest version of Stellaris' and 'modding compatibility,' which clarifies the tool's behavioral scope beyond the annotations.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context without any wasted words. Every sentence adds clear value.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and its context, but lacks details on return values or error handling. With annotations covering safety and semantics, and schema covering parameters, the description is adequate but could be slightly enhanced.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (docType and element). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions the parameter types without additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 with specific verbs ('check'/'validate') and resources ('triggers, effects, modifiers, scopes, localizations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'modding compatibility verification' which suggests a validation focus different from search or configuration tools.

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 clear context for usage ('useful for modding compatibility verification'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. It implies usage during modding but lacks exclusion criteria.

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