Validate component integration

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

The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a read-only tool, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating it returns structured findings and fixes rather than applying them, and that it does not execute callbacks. This clarifies the side-effect boundary beyond what the annotation alone provides.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the concrete validation scope, and the second immediately states return behavior and a crucial limitation. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description manages to communicate the core input domains, the structured return type, and the lack of callback execution. The output schema can carry the detailed return structure, but the description still leaves the 'controllers' parameter and usage context undefined, so it is not fully complete.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic context by linking params to concepts like 'stylesheet dependencies', 'SVG symbols', 'ID references', and 'declared application events'. However, the 'controllers' parameter is never mentioned, and some mappings like 'ID references' remain ambiguous between componentIds and externalIds.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the exact integration concerns: component markup, stylesheet dependencies, SVG symbols, ID references, initialization, and declared application events. It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('does not execute callbacks'), which further distinguishes it from a generic validator or execution tool.

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 scope is clear enough that an agent can infer this is for integration validation, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose validate_integration over siblings like validate_markup, check_contrast, or audit_theme. There are no when-not-to-use or alternative-routing statements.

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