Validate ECharts option

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it is a dry-run (no rendering) and returns errors and warnings, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not detail edge cases or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key action ('Dry-run structural and semantic validation') and includes the return value summary. Every word contributes to the user's understanding with no fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, behavioral constraints, and return semantics. It could be more complete by listing example validation rules or the exact return shape, but it is largely sufficient for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter 'option' with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds the version context (echarts@6.1.0) and validation scope (structural/semantic) but does not add additional parameter-level meaning 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 clearly states the tool performs 'structural and semantic validation of an ECharts option against echarts@6.1.0 without rendering.' It uses a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('ECharts option'), and the 'without rendering' clause distinguishes it from the sibling render_echart tool.

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 implies usage context by noting 'without rendering' and 'dry-run', suggesting it is the safe pre-render check. However, it never explicitly mentions alternative tools or provides when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings render_echart and list_chart_types.

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