Validate .mmt file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering side effects. The description adds workflow context and states the return type (structured errors and fix suggestions), but does not disclose deeper behavior such as what happens on a valid file, partial results, or validation categories.

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 short and front-loaded with the mandatory call timing, followed by the return behavior and a caution about forbidden CLI commands. There is slight redundancy between 'after every create or modify operation' and 'immediately after editing', but no significant waste.

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 read-only validation tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what it returns, and unsafe alternatives to avoid. It would be fully complete with a bit more detail on the structure or categories of errors returned.

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% and already documents all three parameters, including the expectedType enum and workspaceRoot purpose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

Title identifies the operation and resource ('Validate .mmt file'), and the description adds a concrete outcome: returns structured errors and fix suggestions. This distinguishes it from siblings like run or format, though it still leaves the exact validation scope implicit.

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 gives explicit timing: REQUIRED after every create or modify operation on an .mmt file, immediately after editing, and before telling the user the task is done. It also warns against substituting testlight, npx, npm, shell, or node dist/mcp/server.js, making the correct invocation context unambiguous.

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