validate_x3d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the validation catches (node names, attribute types, hierarchy violations) and the schema version, and provides an example document. It does not detail output behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need.

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 well-structured: purpose, use case, error categories, and an Args section with example. It is longer than strictly necessary but every section adds value, especially the sample XML document.

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 single-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, input format requirements, and gives an example. It could add a note about return values, but output schema likely covers that, and it remains complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates with an Args section explaining that x3d_xml must be a complete X3D document including XML declaration and root element, plus a minimal working example. This gives the agent everything needed to construct valid input.

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 and resource: 'Validate an X3D XML string against the official X3D 4.0 schema.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling validate_x3d_file_tool by emphasizing input as a string rather than a file.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before presenting it to users or writing it to files.' It gives clear context but does not name alternative tools or define when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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