bib:validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the tool is a read-only validation operation and that it returns a list of errors and warnings. It also specifies the categories of validation performed, giving the agent a good sense of what will happen without requiring a sample call.

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 one tight sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the specific checks performed, and ends with the return value. Every clause adds meaningful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it names the file, the optional style input's purpose, the categories of validation, and the return shape. It could be even richer by mentioning whether the tool modifies the file or lists usage examples, but it is already sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both 'file' and 'style' are already well documented in the input schema. The tool description adds only general context about validation, not additional detail about how the parameters are used. This matches the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('the entire bibliography file'), and enumerates exactly what is checked: YAML syntax, required fields per CSL type, duplicate IDs, and missing issued dates. This clearly distinguishes bib:validate from sibling tools like bib:list, bib:get, or bib:add, which perform different operations.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear and implies it should be used to validate a bibliography file, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to other sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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