validate_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is validated but doesn't describe how the validation works (e.g., error reporting, output format, side effects like file modifications). For a validation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't cover aspects like whether it's read-only, performance implications, or error handling.

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, efficient sentence: 'Validate MDX files, frontmatter, internal links, code examples, and overall documentation quality.' It's front-loaded with the main action and lists key components without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by hinting at usage context, but it earns its place as concise and clear.

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 complexity (validation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what is validated but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. While the schema handles parameters well, the overall context for an agent to use the tool effectively is insufficient, as it doesn't explain what happens after validation (e.g., report generation, success/failure indicators).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (docs_path, strict, check_links, check_code_examples) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or validation specifics. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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's purpose: 'Validate MDX files, frontmatter, internal links, code examples, and overall documentation quality.' It specifies the verb (validate) and resources (MDX files, frontmatter, links, code examples, documentation quality), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'analyze_codebase' or 'generate_documentation,' which might have overlapping validation aspects, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists what it validates but doesn't mention when it's appropriate (e.g., during documentation updates, before publishing) or when not to use it (e.g., for code analysis vs. documentation validation). With sibling tools like 'analyze_codebase' and 'generate_documentation,' there's no explicit differentiation, leaving usage unclear.

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