validate_scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive/ closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the files-vs-task precedence rule and the post-edit sequencing. It is silent on output shape and on rate/cost characteristics of inspecting up to max_files files, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the workflow trigger front-loaded before the parameter-selection rule. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 read-only recommender with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows when to call it and how to bias it. The gaps are minor but real — it never describes what a 'validation check and command' result looks like, and it omits the required context that subagents must pass their own worktree root.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description's only parameter guidance (files precedence over task inference) is a near-restatement of what the files property already documents. Neither 'root' (worktree requirement) nor 'max_files'/'format' get added meaning in the description.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'recommend the most relevant validation checks and commands', which correctly frames this as a recommender rather than an executor despite the 'validate' name. It also anchors itself in the workflow ('After edit_scope'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like blast_radius or explain, which could plausibly overlap.

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?

Gives clear trigger context ('After edit_scope') and a selection heuristic for the ambiguous case ('Pass files when you already know what changed; they take precedence over task inference'). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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