validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the scan covers every vault file and that output separates errors from softer coaching warnings, but says nothing about runtime cost on large vaults or whether the report is truncated.

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?

A single sentence with the scope (every vault file), the target (frontmatter), and the output (errors and coaching warnings) all front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the tool name alone.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema and a clean annotation set, the description needs only to explain scope and result shape, and it does both briefly. The only gap is that the exact report structure (per-file grouping, warning categories) is left unspecified.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly doesn't waste words on inputs and focuses on the operation itself.

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?

A specific verb (check/validate) applied to a specific resource (every vault file's frontmatter), plus a statement of what it produces (errors and coaching warnings). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_file, search, or weekly_review, though it doesn't explicitly name any of them.

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 states what the tool does but never says when to call it, when not to, or what alternative exists. An agent must infer that it is a whole-vault audit best run after edits or before a commit, without any signal about cost or redundancy with read_file/search.

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