Graphite document validator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that validation does not render, that compileCheck adds the engine's compile verdict with a default of false, and that invalid documents return valid: false with precise reasons instead of throwing an error. This gives the agent a strong model of observable behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key distinction of not rendering. Every clause adds information about behavior, input, or results, with no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers what is validated, how inputs are provided, the optional flag, and how results are returned. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret its outcome.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the mutually exclusive choice between document and documentPath, explains that document is inline, and defines compileCheck's optional role and default. This is exactly the meaning the bare schema cannot convey.

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 uses a specific verb ('validate') and names its resource ('a Graphite document'), then enumerates the exact validation dimensions: JSON parse, network_interface shape, node-entry tuples, and export references. The phrase 'WITHOUT rendering' differentiates it from sibling rendering 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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for structural validation, not rendering, and explains the two input modes: inline document or documentPath. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of graphite_render', but the rendering exclusion and sibling list make the intended context clear.

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