validate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation returns detailed validation results and implies a non-creating action by targeting an existing server, but it doesn't state whether validation has side effects, starts the server, or requires special access.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the output. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema, this is nearly adequate, but the lack of usage guidance and the absence of annotation-driven safety context leave the agent without enough information to know when this is the right tool or whether any side effects are possible.

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 has no description for 'server_path' (0% coverage), and the description does not explicitly define what kind of path is expected (directory, executable, config file, etc.). The tool name and 'existing MCP server' make the parameter partially inferable, but the description doesn't add enough meaning to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') with a resource ('an existing MCP server') and states an outcome ('Returns detailed validation results'). It is clear about the tool's basic job, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish validation from neighboring diagnostic tools such as 'doctor' or 'inspect'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose 'validate' over sibling tools like 'doctor', 'inspect', or 'plan'. The phrase 'existing MCP server' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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