Silverstripe Validator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: the types of issues detected and the iterative requirement. However, it does not describe the return format or state that the tool is read-only, which would be valuable for a validator. The absence of return details is a minor gap.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a strong imperative for mandatory usage, and a concise bulleted list of detection categories. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick understanding.

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 purpose, when to use it, and what it detects, which is strong given the 4-parameter schema and lack of output schema. However, it does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., a list of issues, a status indicator), which leaves a gap for agents needing to process results. This is a notable omission for a validator 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, except linking 'generated Silverstripe PHP code' to the code parameter and mentioning BuildTask patterns relevant to filename context. It does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 function: analyzing PHP code for Silverstripe 6 compatibility issues. It uses a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('PHP code'), and the bulleted list of detection categories distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-documentation or search-changelog.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('MUST be called on any generated Silverstripe PHP code before presenting to the user') and provides an iterative usage pattern ('Keep calling until no issues remain'). This gives clear context and exclusions, leaving no ambiguity about when it should be invoked.

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