validate_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: structural checks always run, XSD bundling details, edge cases when XSD is missing, and the exact output format with issue structure. This level of detail fully informs an agent about what to expect.

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 relatively long but each sentence adds value, explaining output, edge cases, and error reporting. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no superfluous text. It could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It explains the return structure, validity condition, and important edge cases (XSD missing). An agent has all necessary information to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path', which is already described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the .rdl file to read.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 performs schema/structural validation on .rdl files, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lint_report' or 'verify_report', which may perform overlapping checks.

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 validation of .rdl files but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as for pre-deployment checks vs. ongoing linting. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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