Validate Research Artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a solid job: it names the exact input files, notes the optional review file, states the gates are deterministic, and clarifies that nothing is resent through the payload. It could add explicit no-side-effect or permission details, but the read-and-validate behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second details the exact behavior and files, and the third pins down the scope values. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 that an output schema exists, return-value details are unnecessary. The description covers input files, gates, scope values, and the no-resend behavior, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be more explicit about run_dir semantics, but overall the essentials are present.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for scope by listing valid values and showing how it interpolates into file paths, and it ties run_dir to the run workspace. However, it never explicitly names or describes run_dir as the workspace directory parameter, leaving some inference required.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('one scope's research artifacts'), then enumerates the exact files and gates involved. It also names the valid scope values, which separates it from sibling validation tools such as validate_research_result and validate_evidence_review.

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 provides context ('directly from the run workspace') but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like validate_research_result or validate_evidence_review. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, so an agent must infer the usage boundary.

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