Validate ruleset

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it adds real context: no code is executed, JavaScript rulesets are unsupported, and what `valid` and `warnings` signify. However, it doesn't state what happens on malformed YAML/JSON input (throw vs valid=false), which is a meaningful behavioral gap for a validation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by result semantics. The closing notes on server-side --ruleset and JavaScript are useful rather than padding, though the sentence about warnings is dense and packs several conditions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail isn't required, yet the description still explains the two key fields. For a one-parameter validation tool this is essentially complete; only error behavior on unparseable input is left unstated.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the load. The description's mention of 'YAML or JSON' reinforces the accepted format but adds nothing about string encoding, size limits, or file-vs-inline handling.

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+resource: 'Checks a YAML or JSON OpenLint ruleset without running any code', which tells an agent exactly what the tool operates on and that it is static analysis. It implicitly separates itself from list_rulesets by taking ruleset content rather than enumerating stored rulesets, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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 explains the decision-relevant context: warnings indicate what 'lint_document would refuse when the ruleset is passed inline', and notes such rulesets 'can still be configured on the server with --ruleset'. That is clear guidance on when this tool's output matters and what to do with each outcome, though there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_rulesets.

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