existdb_validate_xquery

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it validates against a live instance, does not execute, and returns syntax errors with line/column info. However, it omits details about authentication requirements, network dependency, and behavior on success, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the return value. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description explains the tool's core function and error output, but lacks information about success response, connection parameters, and authentication. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave the tool underspecified for a user needing full operational context.

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 25% (only 'xquery' is described). The description does not compensate for the undocumented 'endpoint', 'password', and 'username' parameters, leaving their roles inferable only from names. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's own 'xquery' description.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('validates'), resource ('XQuery expression'), and context ('against a live eXist-db instance'), while explicitly contrasting with execution ('without executing it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like existdb_execute_query.

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 phrase 'without executing it' provides clear context that this tool is for syntax checking rather than executing a query, implying use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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