Build Validation Evidence Report

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it builds a report without mentioning side effects, required permissions, output format, or whether it modifies state. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, though it could be slightly more descriptive.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and the presence of similar sibling tools (e.g., dl_readback_and_report), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the report contains, how it relates to validation workflows, or how it differs from other reporting 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?

The only parameter 'project_root' has a description 'Local project root' in the schema, and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 specifies a verb ('Build') and a resource ('validation evidence report') with types (static/readback/runtime), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'dl_readback_and_report' or 'dl_validate_object', but the tool name and description imply a report generation function.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dl_validate_project or dl_readback_and_report. The description lacks context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or conditions.

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