Validate a Posecode movement

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 discloses that the tool returns errors and ROM clamps, and notes the limitation regarding clinical safety. However, it does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences that clearly communicate the tool's function and usage. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words are present.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it explains the input, output (errors and ROM clamps), and appropriate use case. The caution about clinical safety adds important context. No additional information is needed for agent understanding.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'source' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 that the tool parses a .posecode document and returns errors and ROM clamps. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its use case: to check source before showing to a user, implying it is for validation rather than authoring or rendering.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this to check the source before showing it to a user'. It also provides a critical caution that 'a clean result is not a clinical safety assessment'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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