xml_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that network/DTD fetches are disabled (security behavior) and that errors are reported with line/column (error reporting behavior). It does not detail the exact success return format, but adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise security note. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary repetition.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description covers purpose, optional schema, error reporting, and security. Missing details like the success return value are minor and inferable, making this sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 exactly 50% (one of two params described). The description adds context about the optional XSD schema, reinforcing the schema parameter's description, but does not elaborate on the 'xml' parameter beyond what the tool name implies. It provides moderate added value.

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 XML well-formedness with optional XSD schema, using a specific verb and resource. It is the only XML validation tool among siblings, so it is inherently distinguished.

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 clearly implies use for XML validation and mentions optional schema validation, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for the same purpose, so no exclusions are needed.

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