verify_yaml

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs strict validation ('exact') and specifically checks for duplicate keys, plus returns 'structured diagnostics'. However, it omits how invalid YAML is handled (e.g., throws vs. returns diagnostics) and what 'exact' encompasses beyond duplicate keys.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and every word adds value. It avoids repetition of schema fields and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description does not explain the interaction between paths and repository_root, nor the precise validation semantics. It is moderately complete for a simple validation tool but leaves enough ambiguity to warrant a mid-range score.

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%, and the description does not explain the roles of 'repository_root' or 'paths'. It only implies that paths point to YAML files, leaving critical ambiguity about whether paths are relative to repository_root or absolute, and how the validation resolves them.

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 validates YAML files, using the verb 'Validate' with the resource 'YAML files'. The specific mention of 'duplicate keys' and 'structured diagnostics' adds precision, distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_markdown_links and skill_validate.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests YAML validation, there is no mention of when not to use it or citations of other tools for different file types. The context is implied but not stated.

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