schema_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of transparency. It states that validation occurs and that errors are reported, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the operation is read-only), return format, or error handling behavior. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's runtime behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information: the action, the input types, the schema formats, and the output nature. It is concise with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and expected result (reporting errors). It lacks details on the exact structure of the report or behavior on success, but these are not critical for basic usage. The context is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions that go slightly beyond their names: 'The schema definition to validate against' and 'The JSON data object or array to validate' clarify the roles. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not specify expected formats, examples, or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the descriptions are adequate but not enriched.

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 primary function: validating a JSON payload against a schema. It specifies supported schema types (SQL, Prisma, JSON Schema) and the nature of the output (detailed type errors and missing fields), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools schema_convert and schema_generate_mock.

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 purpose is explicit and naturally implies when to use it (when validation is needed). While it does not explicitly contrast with the siblings, the distinct actions (validate vs. convert vs. generate mock) are evident from the tool names and description, providing sufficient guidance without explicit 'use this when' statements.

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