validate-yaml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns parse errors, implying a read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free operation or what happens on success. It adds some transparency but lacks detail.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the key action and return. It is efficient but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema (though not shown), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on parameter usage and full behavioral details, making it minimally complete.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'paths' parameter beyond the tool's purpose. The parameter name is suggestive, but the description fails to add meaning (e.g., file paths, glob patterns, or required format).

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 validates YAML files and returns parse errors with line/column, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate-playbook. However, it does not elaborate on what 'validate' entails (e.g., syntax only), leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validate-playbook for Ansible playbooks) or any preconditions. The purpose is implied but not explicitly guided.

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