validate_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only linter (offline, no network) and lists checks and return facts. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or whether it requires specific permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 dense paragraph that packs many checks into a few sentences. It is not overly long but could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of errors/warnings and facts.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description explains what the tool does and returns. However, it does not guide on parameter usage (e.g., content vs contentFile) or provide enough context for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.

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 only 20% (only 'site' has a description). The tool description does not provide any additional meaning for the parameters (title, content, contentFile, tags) beyond what the schema provides. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but does not.

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 it is an offline linter for articles, listing specific errors (empty content, missing title/H1, double H1) and warnings (title length, paragraph length, missing FAQ section, etc.), and that it returns facts. This distinguishes it from siblings like publish_article and update_article which automatically run this validation.

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 mentions it is used offline and is automatically run within publish_article/update_article, implying it can be used manually for validation before publishing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like audit_content, which could be similar.

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