validate_spider_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses static validation (non-executing) and mentions specific validation checks, but does not state error handling, return format, or explicitly confirm it is read-only beyond what 'statically' implies.

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, focused sentence with no filler; every word adds meaning, and the description is front-loaded with the core action.

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 undocumented parameters and lacking annotation context. It doesn't explain expected_class_name, desired outcomes, or how validation results are presented, despite having an output schema.

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% and the description does not mention the 'code' or 'expected_class_name' parameters, leaving their semantics entirely to the raw schema field names. No compensation is made for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'validate' with a clear resource 'generated spider code' and scopes validation to 'syntax and common silkworm/CDP wiring', making it distinct from sibling tools like generate_spider_template or run_crawl_blueprint.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies it should be used on generated code but does not mention related tools like generate_spider_template or silkworm_fetch, leaving the agent to infer context.

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