validate_composition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'Does not render or evaluate dynamic code' and 'Statically check' clarify that no execution occurs, which is crucial for an agent to avoid expecting runtime behavior. This goes beyond annotations and is transparent.

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 filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral caveat in the second sentence. Every word adds value.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers what the tool does, what it checks, and that it does not execute code. It does not mention the return format, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a validation tool, this is a minor gap. An agent can reasonably expect a list of issues.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It implies the 'code' parameter is the HTML/Astro source to check by mentioning 'HTML/Astro source', but it does not explicitly map the parameter to that role or explain constraints beyond the schema's maxLength. The mapping is inferable but not explicit.

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 states a specific verb ('Statically check') and resource ('HTML/Astro source'), and enumerates the exact checks (migration errors, missing scripts, nested cards, spacing, hierarchy issues). It clearly differentiates from siblings search_components and get_component_details, which are about searching and retrieval, not 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 gives clear context that the tool is for static validation of source code, which implies it should be used when checking for those specific issues. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is so distinct that an agent can infer the appropriate usage.

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