perseus_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., does it modify state?), validation behavior on failure (throws error or returns boolean?), or any permissions needed. This is insufficient for a validation tool.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words, achieving high conciseness. However, it lacks structure like sections or examples; still appropriate for a simple tool.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not specify the return format, error handling, or what 'rendered block' refers to. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should compensate but does not.

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% (one parameter defined), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it calls 'schema' a 'modifier for @validate' but doesn't explain what values are expected or how it maps to the validation logic. No enums or additional semantics.

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 validates a 'rendered block' against a schema, specifying both the verb (validate) and the resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like perseus_read or perseus_health, though the term 'rendered block' assumes domain knowledge. No tautology.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any context for prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the function without clarifying typical use cases or boundaries.

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