validate_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says the validation is static, which hints at non-destructive analysis, but it does not describe registry access, failure behavior, or whether any state changes occur.

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 no filler, front-loading the action and scope. Every word contributes to the tool's identity.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with four parameters, two of them undocumented, and no annotations. Even with an output schema, the agent is left guessing about source_path, target_platform, and the precise validation semantics.

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 0%, so the description must clarify all parameters. It only hints that 'prompt' maps to prompt assumptions and 'target' maps to registry facts, and it leaves source_path and target_platform completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('prompt assumptions against target registry facts'), which distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_research_result and validate_evidence_review. 'Statically' also narrows the mode. It could be more explicit about what qualifies as a prompt assumption, so it is not a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool versus validate_research_result, validate_evidence_review, or analyze_prompt. The word 'statically' implies a non-runtime check, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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