robot_dry_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully warns that 'Robot libraries and variable files may still execute code while importing', which is a critical non-obvious behavior. It does not describe how validation results are returned, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The first states the tool's function and scope; the second adds an important caveat. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's core purpose and a key behavioral warning, and the existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not explicitly guide an agent on when to choose this over robot_run or other siblings, leaving some operational context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain what paths should point to, what timeout controls, or how workspace is used. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Validate'), a clear resource ('Robot imports, variables, and keywords'), and an explicit boundary ('without test execution'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like robot_run and robot_list_tests.

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 phrase 'without test execution' provides clear usage context: this is a pre-flight validation tool rather than a test runner. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the execution boundary and the validate-focused wording make the primary use case clear enough.

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