validate_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'local validation, not UI preview', which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool modifies any state, whether it returns a result (e.g., a boolean or list of missing items), or how errors are handled. It also does not explicitly say it is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 concise sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, conveying the purpose and a key differentiator without any redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how the result is communicated. It does not describe the return value or success/failure behavior. It also omits any prerequisites (e.g., an active session). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete because an agent cannot know what the tool outputs or what conditions must hold.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The schema contains no properties, and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters that do not exist.

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 action ('check') and the resource ('current session Schema/extra integrity'), and it adds a distinguishing note ('local validation, not UI preview'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_schema or set_full_schema, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and understandable.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without any context about when validation is appropriate, whether it should be called before saving, or what conditions trigger its use. There is no exclusion or mention of other tools to prefer.

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