Validate a UI5 manifest.json

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing exactly what gets checked, including files-on-disk validation for views and i18n resources. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Validates the manifest against UI5 rules') and then efficiently lists the validation categories. Every part adds useful information with no 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?

Given the single parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. An agent can correctly infer what the tool checks and how to invoke it without missing critical information.

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 100% and the only parameter, appPath, has a clear schema description. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool validates a UI5 manifest.json and enumerates specific rule categories (sap.app id pattern, dataSources, model references, routing targets, view/i18n files, card structure). This is a specific verb+resource and helps differentiate from generic siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with run_ui5_linter.

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 implies the tool is for manifest validation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like run_ui5_linter or when not to use it. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons.

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