validate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool runs validation commands and reports results, and mentions timeout. However, it does not clarify whether commands modify files, fail behavior, or permission needs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and a key recommendation. Every sentence contributes value with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and low schema coverage. It does not explain the role of most parameters or the output structure, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 only 13% (one param documented). The description adds meaning only for timeout, leaving 7 parameters (files, model, extra_roots, etc.) unexplained. The tool description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Run existing repo validation commands') and the resource ('repo'), with specific verbs (build, test, lint) and result reporting. It distinguishes from siblings like 'build' (which likely only builds) and '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 a recommended timeout (10 minutes), offering practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the name and context make the purpose clear. No when-not or alternative directives are given.

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