validate_cross_references

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

Discloses 'Read-only' and details the kinds of findings: broken refs, unreferenced bookmarks, and heuristic plain-text references. Explains the Word rendering consequence for broken refs and states paragraph indices are included, giving agents a full safety and output picture without annotations.

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 compact and organized as a lead action plus concise finding categories and a read-only note. Each clause adds operational value without repetition or filler.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers scope, finding categories, heuristic behavior, and output location. It is nearly complete, though it relies entirely on the schema for the only input parameter.

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?

The schema provides only the name 'file_path' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions or elaborates on that parameter. There is no guidance about accepted path formats, file types, or how file_path is used, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a precise action: 'Check every REF/PAGEREF cross-reference against the bookmarks that actually exist.' It enumerates the finding categories, making it distinct from validation siblings like check_reference_field_integrity.

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?

Clear about what it validates but not explicit about when to choose it over sibling validation tools such as check_reference_field_integrity or validate_notes. No when-not/alternative guidance, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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