validate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read, and the description adds that it checks three specific categories and returns errors. However, it doesn't explain what 'strict ontology' entails, whether it aborts early, or error format/severity. The idempotentHint=false annotation is somewhat surprising for a pure validation read and the description doesn't clarify why.

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?

Single concise sentence with the checked resources front-loaded and the return behavior appended. Minimal and readable, though it could better front-load the primary subject.

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 tool sitting among many related validation/inspection siblings, with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify scope semantics and where it fits. As written, an agent cannot confidently know what scope to pass or how this differs from lint/gate_check.

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?

One parameter ('scope') with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. The description says nothing about what scope is, its allowed values, or what happens if omitted (it is not required). With no schema documentation to lean on, this is a clear gap.

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 specific verb ('validates') and the resources it checks (frontmatter, reserved files, strict ontology), and mentions a return ('returns the errors'). It stands apart from siblings like lint or kb_review, though 'validate' is generic and it doesn't explicitly disambiguate what 'validate' means versus 'lint'/'gate_check' in the sibling set.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus lint, kb_review, kb_status, or gate_check, which all occupy a similar validation/inspection space. The description neither names alternatives nor states preconditions or when-not-to-use.

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