Validate XRC-137 authoring rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists common errors caught, disclosing the tool's checking behavior. However, it does not describe side effects (likely none), permission requirements, or output format, which would improve transparency.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads usage context and then lists specific error categories, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description lacks critical context: it does not specify return value (e.g., boolean, error list), state the tool is read-only, or indicate prerequisites. For a validation tool, agents need to know what response to expect.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'rule' parameter's expected structure beyond mentioning it is an XRC-137 rule. The listed error types indirectly hint at properties, but explicit field definitions or constraints are missing, leaving the agent to infer input 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 the tool validates XRC-137 authoring rules, specifying it is for use after drafting and before finalizing. It lists specific error types, distinguishing it from sibling validation tools like validate_xdala_blueprint or validate_xgr_multibundle.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after drafting... before presenting as final'), providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity to XRC-137 authoring rules implies it is not for other rule types.

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