Validate ASN.1 Schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns 'schema diagnostics' but does not explain what those diagnostics entail, whether the tool has side effects, or what happens with invalid input. The behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without extraneous detail, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 validation tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description is somewhat complete but lacks guidance on the mutual exclusivity of inputs and the nature of the returned diagnostics. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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%, so the input schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema content. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Validate' and clearly identifies the resources: 'supported ASN.1 definition subset' or 'ASN.1 Instance Builder Schema Model JSON'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'parse_asn1_definition' (which parses without validation) and 'validate_asn1_instance' (validates an instance against a schema).

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 does not mention that 'definition' and 'schema' are mutually exclusive or suggest when to provide one over the other. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tools are referenced.

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