validate_uuid

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

No annotations are provided, so description is the sole source. It describes what the tool does (checks canonical form, returns version/variant/nil), but does not disclose error behavior, return format, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'USE THIS'. No excess words. Every sentence adds value. Perfectly concise and structured.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key functional aspects: what input it expects, what it checks, and what it returns. Could be improved by noting error behavior, but sufficient for typical use.

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 provides a description for 'uuid' parameter. Description adds that it checks the 'canonical 8-4-4-4-12 form', which adds format detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this extra info is valuable.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (verify, read) and resource (UUID). It explains the purpose of distinguishing UUID versions, which is specific to UUIDs. Sibling tools are other validators but the description's focus on UUID version/variant differentiates it well.

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?

Description explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify a UUID' and gives an example use case. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the tool name and context of many sibling validators imply it's for UUID only. Strong guidance overall.

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