validate_package_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates the tool validates format and returns a result with errors, but it does not specify whether the validation is local or requires network access, nor does it describe side effects (likely none). The mention of returns is adequate but lacks detail.

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 brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the purpose, parameter, and return value in a structured docstring format, earning its place without waste.

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 (single parameter, output schema present), the description provides complete context: explains what it does, what input is needed with an example, and what the output contains. No additional information is necessary.

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%, but the description compensates by providing meaning for the single parameter: 'Package name to validate (e.g., com.example.myapp)' adds format guidance and an example, which is valuable beyond the schema's property definition.

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 that the tool validates a package name format, specifying the verb (validate) and resource (package name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on deployment, releases, etc., with no other tool performing package name validation.

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 using this tool before other operations, providing clear context for its usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative validation tools, though no direct sibling alternatives exist.

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