validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The only behavioral hint is 'deep проверяет STEP', which implies a heavier check mode, but the description says nothing about cost, failure modes, or what a 'timeline health' result means.

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?

It is short, but it is short by being an unpunctuated fragment list rather than a front-loaded, informative sentence. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not economy.

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?

For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many overlapping siblings, the description leaves critical gaps: what is validated, what a result contains, and how it differs from the other check/audit tools.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry both parameters. It only hints at 'deep' (checks STEP) while object_name is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess what object is being validated.

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 is a fragment list ('Timeline health, solid, volume') rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says what validate actually does or returns. It gestures at what is inspected but never states the action, and it does not distinguish itself from validation-adjacent siblings like health_check, design_audit, or inspect_part.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent choosing between validate, health_check, design_audit, and inspect_part gets no routing signal at all.

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